LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



00DEDSDfitD3E 



^m^mmmmmmmmmmm^' 






VICTOR L. BERGER 
First Socialist Elected to Congress 



BROADSIDES 



By VICTOR L. BERGER 

First Socialist Congressman 



;>20 



Third Edition 



Milwaukee 

Social-Democratic Publishing Company 

1913 

All Rights Reserved 






mm 

SEP 7S B» 



\^ 



.m^ 



CONTENTS. 

Page 

Real Social-Democracy 3- 7 

We Did Not Create Classes 8- 14 

Are Socialists Practical? 15- 19 

Moving by the Light of Reason 19- 24 

How Will Socialism Come? 25- 30 

Means Toward the End 30- 34 

Socialism or Communism? 35- 39 

Give Them Hope 39- 43 

Down with the Senate 43- 54 

An Outworn Garment 54- 59 

Do We Worship a Fetich? 60- 68 

Words of the Saints 69- 76 

Freedom Has Fled 77- 83 

For Whom Is There Freedom? 83- 87 

Capitalist Liberty . 88- 96 

The Flag Superstition 97-103 

Why the Panic Came 104-114 

Will You Mend Your Roof? 115-120 

Pensions for Soldiers of the Common Weal 121-126 

A Socialist's View of the Single Tax 126-131 

The Social Evil 132-138 

The Swiss System 139-145 

Is An Alliance Possible? 146-155 

Only Seventeen Days to the Battle 156-158 

Labor Learns In the School of Experience 159-16 5 

Socialism Is a Question of Development 166-170 

Getting on the Band Wagon 170-173 

A Few Plain Pointers for Plain Working People by a 

Plain Man 174-182 

Is There Any Other Way?. , 183-186 

Abolish Parties? What For? 187-192 

The End of the Roosevelt Episode 193-199 

This Nation Is Ruled by a Few Corporation Lawyers. .199-205 
An Armed People Is Always a Free People 205-211 



If This Be Treason Make the Most of It 211-216 

Workingmen of Milwaukee, You Form the American 

Vanguard 216-222 

The Form of Government Is of Little Consequence. .222-227 
Do We Want Progress by Catastrophe and Bloodshed 

or by Common Sense? 228-235 

The Profit System Knows No Creed 235-239 

How to Make the Change - 240-244 

The Women Must Find the Profits for the Trusts. . . .245-251 

In What Respect Are We Better Off? 252-256 

The Only Way for the People to Combat the Meat 

Trust 256-263 

What Makes Us Willing to Work and to Sacrifice?. .263-266 
The Socialist Administration and the Tax Question. . .267-273 
The Non-Partisan Workingman Is a Traitor to His 

Class 273-277 

The Party of the New Idea .278-283 

Disagreeable Work 283-287 

Let It Work Both Ways 288-292 



REAL SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY 



Real Social-Democracy, 

Written in September, 1906. 

As 1 have often said, whether with or without social 
reform we cannot escape Social-Democracy. The co- 
operative commonwealth is the aim towards which, from 
a law of nature, the entire political and economical de- 
velopment of modern times is moving. 

Social-Democracy is the goal of the evolution. And 
not by any means a far distant goal. Nor is it the last 
station on the road which humanity will have to follow. 
Progress will never stop. 

The Social-Democracy is the next station. We are 
speeding toward it with the accelerating velocity of a 
locomotive on the road. 

It is only a convincing confirmation of this view, that 
the ''social question'' now stands everywhere in the fore- 
groiind of public discussion. 

We all know from history that an old order of society 
was always doomed, when its appointed guardians and 
supporters felt called upon to make the demands of the 
adherents of the new order their own — when they tried 
to steal the revolutionist thunder, as the saying is. 

Of course, LaFollette, Bryan, Hearst, etc., want cO 
"steal our thunder" for exactly opposite purposes from 
ours. They want to preserve the system. 

* * * 

But we are revolutionists. 



4 BERGERS BROADSIDES 

We are revolutionary not in the vulgar meaning of the 
word, which is entirely wrong, but in the sense illus- 
trated by history, the only logical sense. For it is foolish 
to expect any result from riots and dynamite, from mur- 
derous attacks and conspiracies, in a country where we 
have the ballot, as long as the ballot has not been given a 
full and fair trial. 

We want to convince the majority of the people. As 
long as we are in the minority, we of course have no 
right to force our opinions upon an unwilling majority. 

Besides, as modern men and true democrats, we have 
a somewhat less romantic and boyish idea of the develop- 
ment of human things and social systems. And we know 
that one can kill tyrants and scare individuals with dyna- 
mite and bullets, but one cannot develop a system in 
that way. 

Therefore no true Social-Democrat ever dreams of a 
sudden change of society. Such fanatic dreamers no- 
where find more determined opponents than in the ranks 
of the true Social-Democrats. 



We know perfectly well that force serves only those 
who have it, that a sudden overthrow will breed dictators, 
that it can promote only subjection, never liberty. 

We even propose a general arming of the people as 
the safest means of preventing sudden upheavals and of 
preserving Democracy. 

The Social-Democrats do not expect success from a 
so-called revolution — that is, a smaller or bigger riot — 
but from a real revolution, from the revolutionizing of 
minds, the only true revolution there is. 

.Yet we do not deny that after we have convinced the 



REAL SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY 

majority of the people, we are going to use force if the 
minority should resist. But in every democracy the ma- 
jority rules, and must rule. 

It is clear that this revolution of the minds cannot be 
brought about in a day or two, nor can it be arranged 
according to the pleasure of a few. It can only be at- 
tained by patient work and intelligent organization. . 

Therefore the Social-Democrats concentrate their whole 
force on agitation and organization. The Social-Demo- 
cratic leaders in every country as a general rule are 
matter-of-fact, cool-headed persons. The Social-Demo- 
cratic troops are known to be the best disciplined in ex- 
istence. 

^ * ^ 

Up to a certain point, therefore, the tactics of the So- 
cial-Democrats and the social reformers are exactly the 
same. Both build upon the past historical development 
and take into consideration the present conditions. 

The Social-Democrats absolutely refuse to break off 
the thread of history at any one place. No Social-Demo- 
crat ever dreams of introducing a year i and beginning a 
new era with it, as did the fathers of the great French 
Revolution — which was indeed entirely in harmony with 
their '^a priori" and doctrinaire methods. 

The Social-Democrats leave the making of the calen- 
dars to other people. 

But the tactics and the aims of the Social-Democrats 
do indeed diifer from those of the social reformers in 
one essential point. The Social-Democrats never fail to 
declare that with all the social reforms, good and worthy 
of support as they may be, conditions cannot be radically 
and permanently improved. 



6 T^ERCEr's r-ROADSIOES 

We Social-Democrats say, we are willing to accept and 
|ielp on every social reform. But we also say that social 
reforms are but installments by which w^e must not allow 
ourselves to be bribed : that full economic freedom will 
only be achieved by Social-Democracy. 

Yet as a stepping stone, as a transition — and even as a 
necessary stepping stone and as an indispensable transi- 
tion — social reforms of all kinds are fully and wholly 
recognized by the Social-Democracy. 

We recognize their usefulness and necessity even when 
we do not agree with the motives of the promoters and 
leaders of social reform. We are willing to accept these 
reforms, even when we disagree about their speed and 
the methods to be employed. 

On the other hand, while the social reformers and the 
Social-Democrats therefore have many points of contact, 
they always will form and must form two entirely dif- 
ferent parties. And it is not arbitrarily and willfully that 
the Social Democrats all over the world constitute a dis- 
tinct, separate party. It is absolutely necessary. And it 
does not in any way exclude the possibility of making 
common cause with social reform in legislature and city 
councils for this or the other good measure. But to keep 
our party organically separate and intact is a demand of 
clearness and truth, which after all have great impor- 
tance in political life as everywhere else. 

:;c ^ ;it 

The Social-Democrats do not in the least expect to 
*'make history," as certain ignorant and fanatical impos- 
sibilists dream of doing. What we aspire to is much 
more modest, more matter-of-fact, and therefore more re- 
liable and more substantial. 



REAL SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY 7 

We want to observe closely the course of things, the 
development of economic and political conditions. We 
want to find out, if possible, where this development leads. 
Then, supported by this knowledge, we want to put our- 
selves in line with the march of civilization, so that civi- 
lization will carry us, instead of crushing us, which it 
would do, if — knowingly or not — we should stand op- 
posed to it. 

^ ^ ^ 

Thinking workmen and thinking men of any class be- 
come Social-Democrats not because we like to be ^'differ- 
ent'' from other people. Not because a man by the name 
of Karl Marx has "invented the co-operative common- 
wealth" and painted it as gorgeously as possible — which 
by the way he did not do. We are Social-Democrats be- 
cause we have recognized that the economical develop- 
ment of the present capitalist system leads toward Social- 
istic production. Not that we wish to urge upon human- 
ity "our" Socialist Republic, but that the Socialist Re- 
public has urged itself upon us as the next stage of civi- 
lization and will urge itself some day upon all civilised 
humanity. 

And once granted that the Socialist Republic is the 
necessary product of our economical development, the 
question of the possibility of carrying out the demands 
of the Social-Democracy appears very naive and indeed 
absurd. That which must come by necessity is for that 
very reason possible without further question. 



BERGER S BROADSIDES 



We Did Not Create Classes. 

Written in May, 1908. 

DAVID S. ROSE and his crowd did not make an 
intellectual campaign of any kind in the recent Milwau- 
kee election. They depended mainly upon money, per- 
sonal slander and the free beer and whiskey which they 
gave away to the sovereign voters before and after 
meetings. 

However, in a hazy way they occasionally attempted 
to convey the idea that the Social-Democrats try to in- 
cite class antagonism and class hatred. 

As far as Dave is concerned this is hardly worth an- 
swering. Dave himself does not know what he was 
talking about. His idea of politics is graft, a "wide 
open town' and general debauchery. He and his gang 
are below our criticism. Dave Rose ought to be an- 
swered only by the district attorney, the grand juries 
and the courts. 

* • ♦ 

However, there are some decent men who really be- 
lieve that the Social-Democrats are trying to create class 
antagonism and are preaching the class struggle. 

There are really well meaning men in this country 
who still believe that, this being a republic, there are no 



WE DID NOT CREATE CLASSES 9 

classes in the United States. They claim that everybody 
here is free and the equal of everybody else. 

There are some such people in the middle class, and 
there are some even among the working class, who re- 
peat these hollow phrases. And here and there even a 
capitalist may be found who will say so, although he does 
not believe it because he knows better. 

5k ^ ^ 

As a matter of fact, under the present capitalist sys- 
tem, we have three classes, roughly speaking. 

The first class is the plutocracy, composed of wealthy 
bankers, railway magnates, corporation directors, trust 
magnates, etc., or people who are doing nothing and in- 
herited their wealth. 

The next class is the middle class, composed chiefly 
of small manufacturers, merchants, farmers and some 
professional men. 

The third class is the proletariat, made up of wage 
workers and some persons in professional occupations. 

Now, according to the census of 1900, the total wealth 
of this country is about $95,000,000,000. 

The capitalist class numbers about 250,000 persons. 
They own $67,000,000,000, or 70.5 per cent of the total 
wealth. 

The middle class numbers about 8,430,000 persons, 
owns $24,000,000,000 or 25.3 per cent of the total value. 

The proletarian class numbers 20,400,000 persons ac- 
tually employed, and owns $4,000,000,000 or 4.2 per cent 
of the wealth. 

It is unnecessary for me here to dwell on the di.^er- 
ence in the lives, mode of living and general standard 



10 berger's broadsides 

of the different classes. I may take this up in some 
other article. 

But the existence of classes is nothing new — the class 
struggle is many thousand years old. It began the very 
moment civilization began. 

In the most democratic republic of Athens and the 
aristocratic republic of Sparta, and later on in Rome, the 
people were divided into different classes, with different 
rights and different duties, according to their wealth. 
Some of these classes were hereditary to begin with — 
always provided that the respective family could keep 
its wealth. In Rome, the Censor would assemble the 
Roman people every four years, have every citizen show 
up his wealth and put him into his respective class. And 
the great Cato the Censor got the honorable name of 
Censorius because he would expel from the senatorial 
class the man who could not show the necessary wealth 
to belong to that class. 

And in all these ancient civilized commonwealths there 
was to be found a large stratum of citizens who owned 
nothing — and which in Rome was called the proletariat, 
because the only capacity in which its members could 
serve their country was by furnishing children for the 
state. 

Nor was this all. 

Lower still — most numerous — and belonging to no 
class were the slaves. They did not own their bodies, 
and were not supposed to have any souls. Plato de- 
scribed the slaves as ''animated tools." The slaves were 
either captured as prisoners of war or were made slaves 
on account of debts — or were the descendants of such 
persons. 



WE DID NOT CREATE CLASSES 11 

The class struggle then was very crude and very 
brutal. So much for ancient civilization. 



We all know that the classes almost took the form of 
castes under the feudal system. Everybody was pressed 
into an iron mould. 

Society then was really a pyramid with the king on 
top. The high clergy and the feudal lords, the patricians 
and the burghers of the cities formed the upper layers, 
and the serfs owned by the lords formed the lower layers 
of the pyramid. 

And under the feudal system also as everywhere else, 
wealth and land gotten by force, cunning, or in any 
other way, furnished the basis of the classification. 

The capitalist system, of course, has changed the 
mould. But the class distinction and the class differ- 
ences and the class struggle have remained. In fact, the 
struggle is now more subtle, but more bitter than ever. 

Under former civilizations, in almost every case the 
class distinction was the result of war. And the ruling 
class was made up of the members of the victorious 
tribe or the victorious nation. This was generally the 
case in ancient times and almost invariably so during the 
middle ages. 

The ruling class usually was the stronger, the more 
able part of the population. As a whole it was the only 
class that had any education fitted for the conditions of 
the time. 

Thus the medieval lord was unquestionably the best 
fighter of his day. He was trained for warfare, clad in 



12 berger's broadsides 

iron, and spent all his life in hunting or fighting. The 
average medieval lord in war was good for about 
twenty peasants. Five or six hundred of these lords 
could go out to conquer a country. 

When the Archduke Leopold undertook to conquer 
Switzerland, he had an army of about six hundred, and 
that was considered a most tremendous fighting force. 
And if it had not been for the mountains and the rocks 
of Switzerland, he would have accomplished his purpose. 

* * * 

Without any doubt, in former days the ruling class 
were made up of the most capable and energetic part of 
the people. The great mass of the respective nation 
was also inferior to them intellectually. 

Besides, in every one of these epochs they could claim, 
and did claim, that it was the will of God Almighty that 
they should rule, and that the others should serve and 
obey. 

In old Greece and old Rome the patrician families 
usually also claimed descent from some god. 

And all during the middle ages the church supported 
the claim of the feudal system to be ''God ordained." 
The church was a beneficiary of the system to no small 
extent — the bishops and abbots having great estates and 
ruling the people. 

Besides, the ruling classes were not only more able 
than these lower classes, but in many cases they differed 
iri nationality, speech and general make-up. 

Thus, for instance, the Norman lords spoke French in 
England for a long time. In France, the Franks were 
a German tribe who had taken possession of Gaul. In 
many parts of Germany, the Germans had subjugated 



WE DID NOT CREATE CLASSES 13 

the Wends and other Slavic tribes. Hence there was an 
element of conquest in every case. 
* * * 

In modern countries, the conditions are entirely dif- 
ferent. 

The conquered class is of the same nationality, the 
same speech, the same mode of thought. And the ruling 
class is not better or stronger, nor more able in any way. 

Sihce the general introduction of public schools, the 
proletarians as a whole get at least the elements of the 
same kind of education. The ability to read and write 
opens to them the same avenues of knowledge and men- 
tal power that the ruling class possesses. 

The proletariat and the middle class not only do all 
the useful and necessary work which is to be done under 
the present civilization, but they also have to keep up 
that civilization. 

Today civilization depends entirely upon the proleta- 
riat and middle class for its existence. 

And what is m.ore, the capitalist class is even unable 
to defend its position in case of danger. If there is any 
fighting to be done, the capitalist class has to hire the 
proletariat to do the fighting. 

The capitalist class holds its position only because the 
proletariat is asleep and is not conscious of its strength. 

A statesman of old Rome said that the Romans could 
hold their slaves because they had never counted them- 
selves and their masters. 

However, since we have universal suffrage, there is a 
good chance to count ourselves and our masters at every 
election. 



14 berger's broadsides 

Nor would the claim that God has ordained class rule, 
hold good today. Not even the most stupid Slovak 
would believe Ogden Armour that God has ordained that 
he should speculate in wheat or put rat manure in sau- 
sage in order that he may make millions every year and 
thus keep up his end in the plutocracy. And there are 
very few priests who would dare to support such a 
theory in all its nakedness, no matter how much Armour 
might be willing to pay. 

Nor would any one believe young Thaw or young 
Gould that they are descended from the gods. 
* * * 

Unless plutocracy can persuade the majority of the 
people to close up all the public schools and make illit- 
erates of the next generation, and unless it can also per- 
suade them to give up the electoral franchise, plutocracy 
is doomed. So much is clear. 

And that is the reason why we Social-Democrats can 
look with such equanimity and complacence into the fu- 
ture. 



ARE SOCIALISTS PRACTICAL 15 



Are Socialists Practical? 

Written in March, 19(^3. ' 

SOME Democratic and Republican politicians sneer at 
the Socialists because we are "idealists." The others 
claim that we are as a whole "pretty good fellows," but 
utterly "impractical.'' 

Now what is Socialism? Socialism is defined as the 
collective ownership of the means of production and dis- 
tribution. It is the name given to the next stage of civili- 
zation, if civilization is to survive. 

As a matter of fact, the centralization of the control 
of property in a few hands is increasing with a rapidity 
that threatens the existence of civilization. 

Within a short time we shall have two nations in every 
civilized country, and especially in America — both of na- 
tive growth. 

One nation will be very large in number, but semi- 
civilized, half-fed, half-educated and degenerated from 
overwork and misery ; the other nation will be very small 
in number, but overcivilized, overfed, overcultured and 
degenerated from too much leisure and too much luxury. 

What will be the outcome? 

Some day there will be a volcanic eruption. The hvr- 
gry millions will turn ag^iinct fV»A /^verfed few. A fear- 



16 berger's broadsides 

ful retribution will be enacted on the capitalist class as 
a class — and the innocent will suffer with the guilty. 

Such a revolution will retrograde civilization — it might 
throw back the white race into barbarism. Let us heed 
the warning of history. 

Every honest and practical man — and every patriot 
who can think — ought to say to himself the following: 

The machinery and all the progress in the implements 
of production today we do not want to destroy and we 
cannot destroy, if we are to have civilization. Modern 
humanity does not intend to go back to the barbarism 
of the middle ages. 

But as long as the instruments of production — land, 
machinery, raw materials, railroads, telegraphs, etc. — 
remain private property, only comparatively few can be 
sole owners and masters thereof. And so long as such 
is the case, they will naturally use this private ownership 
for their private advantage. 

The present system was a step in the evolution to free- 
dom, but only a step — it has already resulted in making 
comparatively few the absolute masters of our daily 
bread. 

There is but one deliverance from the rule of the peo- 
ple by capitalism, and that is the rule of capital by the 
people. 

If so much of what has been considered private prop- 
erty is to be absorbed in great monopolistic ownership 
— and there is nothing that can stop it — then, if we are 
to remain a politically free people, the inevitable outcome 
will be that the people must take possession collectively 
of the production and distribution. 

And this is called Socialism. 



ARE SOCIALISTS PRACTICAL 17 

It IS simply a matter of growth and of evolu- 
tion. Yet we must not forget that though society 
truly an organism, the evolution of society does not take 
place precisely like the growth of plants and animals. 
The former is the result of efforts consciously put forth ; 
the progress of man requires the co-operation of men. 
Therefore, while it is true that Socialism will be the out- 
come of economic conditions, if civilization is to survive, 
we must see to it that civilization does survive. 

The idea that because Socialism is bound to come, we 
do not have to work for it, would be fatalistic, and 
might prove fatal to civilization. Carlyle is right, when 
he says: "The history of what man has accomplished 
is at bottom the history of the great men who have 
worked here." 

An idea to be successful must be in harmony 
with surrounding conditions, but that alone is not 
enough. It must be propagated and made alive in men 
and women. There must be a few people, at least, who 
care a great deal about the idea and who feel a resistless 
impulse towards its propagation. 

And in that respect the Socialists are eminently prac- 
tical people. Since Socialism is to be the next phase of 
civilization — as the trusts, the centralization of property 
and every new invention seem to prove — those who act 
as the roadmakers and pathfinders for the new civiliza- 
tion do eminently practical work indeed. 

I have indicated before that we are not able to destroy 
the present order of society at one blow, without destroy- 
ing civilization. Society is an organization. We are not 
able to start all afresh. We cannot begin civilization all 
over again. Socialism must emanate from capitalism, 
as capitalism developed out of feudalism. 



18 berger's broadsides 

Our present civilization has gradually grown up, and 
the future civilization must grow out of this. 

If society could be compared to a house, we could sim- 
ply tear it down and build a new mansion on modern 
lines with every convenience. But we cannot compare 
a living organism with a house — at the best we could 
say that our task is to convert the old house into a new, 
up-to-date mansion and to keep it habitable all the time 
while we are rebuilding. 

We know what we want. The Social-Democratic 
party is essentially a constructive organization. When- 
ever and wherever we pull out an old brick or take down 
a dangerous wall, we have something better ready in its 
place. 

Now it has been shown that public ownership is better 
than private ownership.Who would hand over the post- 
office, for instance, although it is not an ideally managed 
institution, to Mr. Rockefeller or Mr. Gould? Or what 
Milwaukee citizen would like to see the Milwaukee Gas 
Light Company take hold of the city water plant? And 
while ^'public ownership" is not Socialism by any means, 
it is a step towards it and trains the mind for Socialism. 
And it is not too much if we say that the idea of 'Tublic 
Ownership" is in the air today and that the agitation of 
the Social-Democrats is largely responsible for educating 
public opinion in that respect. 

The Social-Democrats are students of history and 
know that sunken and degraded people lose the power 
to help themselves. Therefore, the Social-Democrats 
welcome all efforts of the laboring people to better their 
conditions right now by organization. Social-Democrats 
consider it their duty to assist the trades unions in their 



MOVING BY THE LIGHT OF REASON 19 

truggle for fair wages and a better standard of living. 
Are we alot of ''impracticals" and ''idealists" for so 
Joing? 



Moving by the Light of Reason. 

Written April 15, 1905. 

CERTAIN "impossible fellows/' impossible as Social- 
ists, impossible as Trade Unionists, and impossible as 
civilized human beings generally, have accused the So- 
cial-Democratic Herald and especially Victor L. Berger 
of '^opportunism." 

Why? 

Because without losing sight of the final aim which the 
vSocial-Democratic party seeks to accomplish, we advo- 
cate a policy of steady Socialistic reforms that are right 
in line with Socialism and leading towards it. 

We do not believe that a certain "catastrophe" can 
change very much in the Social System, per se, unless 
economic conditions (besides the education and enlighten- 
ment of the people) are favorable towards a complete 
change. Otherwise we might simply change masters. 

In the first place, the world has never seen such a 
thorough-going transformation of property as Socialism 
intends to accomplish. The change from slavery to serf- 
dom and from serfdom to the wage system sinks intc 



20 berger's broadsides 

insignificance when compared with it, and yet these 
changes took many centuries in every case. 

As a matter of fact, Socialism must create a new kind 
of property — the collective property. 

When slavery disappeared, or when feudalism fell 
down, the work accomplished was purely negative. A 
certain well defined property, certain well defined privi- 
leges and prerogatives disappeared — ^but the idea of pro- 
perty was not changed. 

We must change it, and that cannot be done in a day, 
in a year, or even in ten years. 

It would not suffice for the Social Revolution to abolish 
capitalism. Social-Democracy must create a new type 
under which production is to go on, and the condition of 
property be regulated in the future. 

Such a new Social System cannot be inspired by the 
minority. It cannot be created by a minority. It cannot 
be worked without the consent and the co-operation of 
the great majority of the citizens. The farmers alone — 
even by passive resistance — could starve the whole Co- 
operative Commonwealth into submission within a few 
weeks. 

It is ridiculous and criminal to talk about the Co- 
operaive Commonwealth in 1908, as do some of our 
thinly varnished ex-Populists, who have (turned into 
*'impossibilists." 

Besides, the city proletariat is still a minority of the' 
population. And outside of Milwaukee, and a few small 
towns in Wisconsin, the Socialists have only gained a 
very small part of this city proletariat. 

Furthermore, I do not believe that even the proletariat 
of any civilized country is ripe for Socialism today. 



MOVING BY THE LIGHT OF REASON 21 

I leave Russia entirely out of the question, because I 
do not consider Russia a civilized country. 

But I do not believe that the English v/orking class 
which just four years ago applauded the butchering of 
the Boers in South Africa is in any way morally or in- 
tellectually ripe for Socialism — no matter whether a 
"revolution" or a dozen of them should take place during 
this or the next generation. 

America's proletariat is not on a higher level. I have 
studied it for many years and I am fairly familiar with 
its character. I also more than doubt whether the work- 
men of Germany have morally and intellectually reached 
the mark that would enable them to establish the Co- 
operative Commonwealth within a generation. 

In the world's history there are no sudden leaps. To- 
day, more than 115 years after the bloody abolition of 
the nobility and the church in France ''forever," Jaures 
and his Socialist friends had to save the Republic for 
the French people. The nobles and the church are stron- 
ger in France today than they were a hundred years ago. 

The pope and the Roman Catholic church did not have 
nearly the power m the civilized world a hundred years 
ago or fifty years ago that they have today. 

Socialism is inevitable, if civilization is to survive. But 
it cannot come over night. 

Therefore, I say we must have a moral, physical and 
intellectual strengthening of the proletariat, before all 
things. We must learn a great deal. And furthermore, 
we must form a close alliance with farmers of progres- 
sive views. In that way we can have a great deal of 
''Socialism in our time," even though we cannot have 
the full-fledged "Co-operative Commonwealth." 



22 bf.rger's broadsides 

And besides all that, I would like to see a systematic 
way of arming all the people. Not for the sake of ''re- 
volution," but for the sake of peace and progress. 

Frederic Engels said once: ''Give every citizen a good 
rifle and fifty cartridges and you have the best guarantee 
for the liberty of the people." Thomas Jefferson held the 
same views exactly. 

An armed people is always a free people. Even dema- 
gogues and parasites would have a great deal less to say 
than they have today. 

With the nation armed (as, for instance, in Switzer- 
land) reforms of all kinds are carried easily and without 
bloodshed. With the nation armed, the proletariat could 
even trust capitalist parties with at least earnestly desir- 
ing social reforms and with making an earnest attempt 
to carry them out. 

With the nation armed in a systematic way. the capi- 
talist class need not fear any sudden uprising — there are 
less riots in Switzerland where the people are armed than 
in Russia where they are disarmed. But with the nation 
armed, the workingmen are not in danger of being shot 
down like dogs at the least provocation. 

On the other hand, I am absolutely in favor of Social- 
istic reforms — "One step," two steps, or six steps at a time 
— as many as we can make — as long as they are in our 
direction — and I am absolutely opposed to the impotent 
and good-for-nothing hollow phrases that are the stock 
in trade of certain hypocritical or ignorant individuals. 

He 5}l * 

Off and on we are also challenged by so-called "scien- 
tific Socialists" who are opposed to a working program 



MOVING BY THE LIGHT OF REASON 23 

for our party, because ''these demands give the old par- 
ties an opportunity to parade before the people as Social- 
istic by taking some of these demands into their plat- 
form/' and thus ''steal our thunder/' 

Now we on the other hand are of this opinion : 

Thunder which can be stolen is nothing but stage thun- 
der, and it concerns us very little whether it is stolen or 
not. Moreover, the aim of the Social-Democratic party 
is not to thunder, but to lighten. And the Socialists' light- 
ning must be real lightning, it must rend a cloud and 
strike — not oratorical colophony that shines a little time 
on the stage, while a few "true believers of the faith" 
clap their applause. 

Since the time of Prometheus, nobody has stolen gen- 
uine lightning. According to the fable, Prometheus stole 
it, in order to teach men the art of making fire and to 
lay the foundations of our civilization. If a new Prome- 
theus should steal the lightnings of the "Socialist gods," 
to give it to men and thus build a higher civilization, the 
writer like an old heretic, would be most exceedingly 
rejoiced. 

But unfortunately the Titans are all dead — Prometheus 
was the last. 

But enough of mythology. 

Some of us have little faith in heavens — either in an 
ancient Greek, the modern Christian or the future Social- 
ist Heaven. With this declaration I give a Mr. Ford or 
some other janitor of the Socialistic heaven of the future 
the right to shut the door in my face if I should apply, 
for admission. 

According to my idea, we shall never reach the niille- 
nium. We shall never have any heaven on earth. We 



24 BERGER^S BROADSIDES 

shall always have great problems to solve. But we shall 
have an infinitely higher civilization than we have now. 
In order to reach it, we must have a truly scientific and 
truly clear-cut Social-Democratic party. 

And what interests this party most at present is the 
solution of those problems which Socialists must solve 
within the present society. 

Therefore, we are compelled to put forth and main- 
tain a working program for this party. The Social- 
Democratic party is a political organization — if we were 
a mere sect, then we should only need a sort of confes- 
sional faith. 

The Social-Democratic party wishes above all things 
to represent the wage working class in the political field. 
It is our duty to take care that all people who perform 
the useful and necessary labor shall be economically, 
morally, and physically strengthened, rescued from ex- 
treme poverty and made capable of resistance in body 
and spirit. 

That is the work we have to do now. 

And every success in this direction will naturally com- 
pel us to make new demands and attain new benefits for 
the proletariat which will weaken the capitalist system. 
In this way — not without many dangers, and perhaps 
with effusions of blood — the present state will ''grow 
into the Socialistic system," to use Liebknecht's expres- 
sion. 

This is the real revolution — I know of no other that 
is real. 



HOW WILL SOCL\LISM COME 25 



How Will Socialism Come? 

Written April 29, 1905. 

SOCIALISM is the name of an epoch of civilization — 
the next epoch, if our civiHzation is to continue. 

We must not expect that the SociaHst era will come 
all at one stroke. Neither capitalism nor feudalism arose 
"at a certain date/' nor can the Socialist form of society 
have its beginning on any fixed day. 

Besides, although capitalistic society has already passed 
its zenith, yet even at the present day feudalism holds a 
very important place in modern society. This is the case 
not only in Germany, in spite of its high economic de- 
velopment, but also in England, the '^classic land" of 
capitalism. 

Just so with any revolution. 

Capitalism will not vanish in one day, in one year, or in 
one decade. Even after the triumph of the working class 
the commonwealth cannot take upon itself all kinds of 
production. 

Many industries today are not concentrated, and there- 
fore are not ripe for collective production. Some will 
become so in time, others perhaps will not. The editor 
of this paper is no prophet and will not attempt to pre- 
dict details. 



26 BERGER^S BROADSIDES 

However, the trusts are now showing the Social-Dem- 
ocrats how they must do it, only the Socialists will have 
to do it from a Socialist standpoint and for the benefit 
of all the people. 

But it is not necessary nor possible that all industries 
should be immediately taken over by the Socialist govern- 
ment. 

Every branch of production controlled by a trust, as 
well as all industries which could be conducted on a 
similar scale, besides railways, telegraphs, mines, etc., 
will of course become collective public property and will 
be managed by the national government. 

But there is a whole class of industries (for instance 
farming) which are not yet ready to be worked on this 
large scale, or which are liable to be decentralized by the 
technical perfection of the methods of transmitting 
power. Many small industries have again become pos- 
sible on account of the transmission of electric power. 
These without any objection can remain in private hands, 
I refer to certain petty industries, as well as to agricul- 
ture. 

In other cases, the Socialist society can give the oppor- 
tunity for the formation of co-operative associations, 
which together with the model industries conducted by 
the state, will raise the level of the working class to a 
degree hardly credible at the present time. 

The chief reason why workingmen's co-operative asso- 
ciations have been impossible hitherto, has even now been 
partly remov^ by the trusts, and of course will be of 
still less account at the rise of the political power of the 
proletariat. 



HOW WILL SOCIALISM COME 27 

The trusts show how a regulated business can be done. 
The management of the co-operative workingmen's asso- 
ciation of the future will find out what the demand is 
and determine the amount and method of the production. 
During the transition period the sale of products may 
take place exactly as at present, only subject to regula- 
tion by the state. 

In the trusts, the capitalist class even now plays the 
most superfluous role in the world. 

Indeed, in the trusts the capitalist class is already ex- 
propriated to a certain extent. 

The smaller investors, who are the great majority, no 
longer have anything to control, and only draw their pro- 
fits. Their industries are apparently the property of the 
shareholders ; but what sort of property is that of which 
one has not the free disposal? They can no longer pro- 
duce what they will, nor at what price they will, nor 
with what workmen they will; aH is prescribed to them 
by the management of the trust. Properly speaking, they 
are only profit-receivers. 

The trusts are ready now for a change of ownership. 

But Wisconsin has been fiercely criticized for a provi- 
sion in its platform to have the nation "buy out'' the 
trusts and pay the net value. And yet Karl Kautsky, 
Emil Vandervelde, William Liebknecht, and even Karl 
Marx, speak of compensation, 

Engels wrote in 1894, "We do not consider the in- 
demnity of the proprietors as an impossibility whatever 
may be the circumstances. How many times has not 
Karl Marx expressed to me the opinion that if we could 
buy up the whole crowd, it would really be the cheapest 
way of relieving ourselves of them.'^ 



28 . berger's broadsides 

Vandervelde says: "There is no doubt that the expro- 
priation without indemnity with the resistance, the trou- 
bles, the bloody disturbances which it would not fail to 
produce, would be in the end most costly." (Collectivism, 
Kerr edition, page 155.) 

In discussing the question of compensation, Karl 
Kautsky, the most radical theorist of the German Social- 
Democracy, says : 

"There are a number of reasons which indicate that a 
proletarian regime will seek the road of compensation 
and payment of the capitalists and land owners." (Social 
Revolution, Kerr edition, page 118.) 

In another place (on page 113) Kautsky says : "A por- 
tion of the factories, mines, etc., could be sold directly to 
the laborers who are working them, and could be hence- 
forth operated co-operatively; another portion could be 
sold to the co-operatives of distribution, and still another 
to the communities or the states. 

"It is clear, however, that capital would find its most 
extensive and generous purchaser in the state or munici- 
palities, and for this very reason the majority of indus- 
tries w^ould pass into possession of the states and munici- 
palities. That the Social-Democrats when they came into 
control would strive consciously for this solution is well 
understood."- 

Well understood ? Yes, everywhere excepting in Amer- 
ica. — 

Of course, all industries of national magnitude would 
be carried on by the government. For smaller industries, 
wherever necessary, the government could make some 
agreement with the co-operative associations of workers. 
We speak of the transition period. 



HOW WILL SOCL\LISM COME 29 

In this transition period, the Socialist government can 
of course lend the necessary capital to the co-operative 
societies and furnish suitable guarantees. The govern- 
ment in this transition period will have at its disposal 
quite different powers than at present For instance, it 
will have a monopoly of all water power, coal mines, 
railroads, rivers, electrical plants, etc. 

So perhaps for a time a state of affairs may arise 
which will combine at the same time three forms of pro- 
duction. That is, the capitalistic form in petty industries, 
where goods will be produced for the market; the co- 
operative form in which the products will be for use and 
also for sale ; and the purely Socialistic, where the gov- 
ernment will carry on production for use only, and the 
production will not take the form of wares at all. 

That all this will take place peacefully, we do not 
maintain. It will surely not come peacefully if the people 
are not armed. It will come peacefully if the people will 
be armed. Riots and bloodsheds are not at all desirable, 
nor will they help civilization. 

Besides, I do not believe that one great revolution can 
turn topsy-turvy the whole civilized world, and undo or 
make superfluous any economic development as outlined 
here. 

Capitalism was necessary to give mankind dominion 
over the forces of nature, which is now assured by our 
scientific attainments. Considered in itself, capitalism 
has by no means reached that stage of development 
where it becomes impossible. 

On the contrary, in the trust system, capitalism has 
just stepped into a new phase, the duration of which is 
unlimited according to our present light. 



30 berger's broadsides 

Of course, from a civilizing force, capitalism has al- 
ready become a menace to civilization. But that does not 
affect its vitality !' However, the tendencies which oppose 
it have now gathered such great strength that a thorough 
change — must not indeed — ^but can take place, if the 
working class understands its mission. 

In conclusion, let me say that the world's history is 
always made by men, and is not a 7nere natural process 
as some Marxists want us to believe. 



Means Toward the End! 

Written September 9^ 1905. 

THE FACT IS being recognized more and more by 
scientists that our civilization is in a constant flow, like 
a river the current of which is ever changing. Yet one 
of the greatest obstacles with which Socialists have to 
contend is the notion that whatever is, must be the im- 
mutable order of nature. Because the wage system has 
prevailed as far back as any one can remember, people 
fancy that this system constitutes the necessary condition 
for civilized society. Social-Democrats say this is a fun- 
damental error, and history proves it. 

The present state of things grew out of feudalism and 
serfdom, which followed a system of master and slave. 

In the ancient states there was no wage system, there 
was slavery. The master was the absolute lord of the 



MEANS TOWARD THE END 31 

persons of his slaves, of the soil, and of the instruments 
of labor, which then were crude and simple. 

Serfdom constitutes the next great stage. The lords of 
the soil were the dominant class, but the workers of the 
soil were personally free, although attached to the soil 
where they were born. Now this second stage, although 
far below our civilization, was at any rate much above 
chattel slavery. 

But the progress of mankind demanded another step, 
and that was capitalism. This was unknown during the 
former periods of the world — which had wealth but not 
capital. This third stage of the development of our race 
has given occasion for the rise of a class of exploiters 
unknown to any of the former civilizations. Our pluto- 
cracy, our industrial, commercial and moneyed aristo- 
cracy are now the masters of all production in all civil- 
ized countries on whose good will, or rather, upon whose 
profits, the laboring people of the world depend for a 
living. 

And all these evils are heightened by cut-throat com- 
petition, which not only forces wag.^-workers into a 
struggle to see who shall live and who shall starve, but 
which also compels the employers to pay as little for 
their labor as possible. 

But the laborers are by no means the only sufferers. 
The small employers and the small merchants are just as 
much victims of that cruel kind of competition as the 
wage-workers. This fierce competition lessens the profit 
on each article, and that must be compensated for by 
greater numbers of them being produced and sold ; that 
is, the cheaper the goods, the more capital is required. 

Precisely then, for the same reason that the mechanic 



32 berger's broadsides 

with his own shop and working on his own account has 
disappeared in the struggle between hand-work and ma- 
chine-work, for the same reason the small employers with 
their little machinery, their small capital, and their little 
stock of goods are being driven from the fields by the 
trusts. 

Our social order or rather social disorder may fitly be 
compared to a ladder of which the middle rounds are 
being torn away one by one. And this absorption of the 
smaller fortunes by the large ones is much hastened by 
the industrial crises, called "panics/' which make their 
appearance every fifteen or twenty years. 

The principle involved in "trusts" is the principle of 
co-operation instead of competition — ^but it is the co-op- 
eration of capitalists only, not the co-operation of the 
people. The object of a "trust" is greater regularity of 
production, steadiness of price and a uniform system of 
credit. It is the shadow of Socialism and it is used for 
the benefit of a few capitalists, instead of the nation. * 

And if this goes on, and according to all natural con- 
sequences it must go on, for all the great capital wants 
to be invested, then in a very short time we shall find 
most of our industries conducted by "trusts" from the 
Atlantic to the Pacific. 

But these phenomena have also another meaning. They 
bring before the public mind the question whether we are 
to have organized capital or organized production? For 
it is perfectly evident that we must in the future have 
organized business action of some sort. Shall we have it 
for the capitalists only, or for the whole people? 

In other words the "trusts" prepare the public mind 
for Socialism. 



MEANS TOWARD THE END 33 

If our "statesmen'' were less blind to the logic of 
events which are pushing us with railroad speed toward 
a total and abrupt revolution, they might bring about a 
state of Socialism gradually and peaceably by a series of 
measures, each consistently developing itself out of the 
previous ones. They might begin from two poles of so- 
ciety. 

Thus, it is now proposed, even by very conservative 
people, to take the telegraph system and the railroads and 
the mines of our country under government control and 
own them like our postoffice department. 

Suppose this measure is realized, as it is sure to be in 
the near future. 

Then do likewise with our express business, our steam 
and sailing vessels and our mines, and thus onward. 

Absorb the Standard Oil Company, the steel trust 
and every other trust, and one great enterprise after 
another as quickly as possible. 

And so from the other pole. 

Why could not cities begin by taking under their con- 
trol and operating their gas works, and electric light, 
railway and telephone plants? And why should they not 
operate their bakeries and drug stores ? Let cities furnish 
to their citizens fuel in winter and ice in summer. 

For are these things not just as essential to public 
health as water? 

Then let them also furnish all the milk, flour and 
meat needed. For the millers of the country have a 
trust now and a few big pacKers lurmsn mc mear ro rne 
butchers. Yes, and let the city take charge of the liquor 
traffic, so that Milwaukee would have more reading 



34 berger's broadsides 

rooms and fewer drinking places — we have 2,600 saloonr. 
at present. 

And furthermore, let the city furnish all the school 
books and at least one meal a day, free of charge, to all 
the children, not only the poor, and clothes to such as 
are needy. 

I do not say, nor even think, that the social question 
will be solved in this manner. Our people are neither wise 
nor peaceable enough to do it. And some of our Social- 
ists are just about as lunatic in that respect as are some 
capitalists. But it seems to me that would be the most 
practical way to solve the social Question for a practical 
people. 



SOCIALISM OR COMMUNISM 35 



Socialism or Communism? 

Written in December, 1907. 

Under Socialism people will produce, but not con- 
sume, in common. 

Our aim is Socialism, not Communism. We want this 
understood. 

Between Socialism and Communism there is a great 
deal of difference. 

* * * 

Collectivism is not a negation of property, nor is 
Socialism. Please keep this in mind. 

Socialism simply demands the collective ownership of 
the means of production and distribution. We will pro- 
duce in common, but the consumption will remain indi- 
vidual. 

Socialism will control only our capital, not our prop- 
erty. A Socialist Commonwealth will not do av/ay with 
the individual ownership of property, but only with indi- 
vidual ownership of capital, 

* * * 

It is Communism that denies individual ownership of 
all property. The Communists want to produce and 
consume in common. There are few conscious Com- 
munists in the world at the present time. 



36 BERGER^S BROADSIDES 

To make myself still more explicit, "capital" is that 
part of wealth which is used as means of production — 
that is, raw materials, as machinery, factories, etc. To 
socialize these is the aim of all Socialists. 

But all products and wares, after they have been dis- 
tributed for consumption and personal use, will remain 
private property. 

It is necessary to state this at this time because there 
are some Communists who think they are Socialists. 

There are even some editors who seem to find it diffi- 
cult to distinguish between capital and property from a 
Socialist standpoint. 

I A Social-Democracy must socialize capital because in 
the Co-operative Commonwealth the industrial democ- 
racy must rule. 

Under the present capitalistic system collective capital, . 
especially as organized in the trusts and big corporations, 
has practically nullified most of the advantages of polit- 
ical democracy, and thus the capitalist class has become 
the ruler of the people. 

It is clear from all this that the people must turn pri- 
vately owned capital into collectively owned capital as a 
matter of self-preservation. 

The people must do it because private capital, which 
was formerly a means of progress, is now impeding 
progress. 

In short, the private ownership of capital was for 
several hundred years an historical necessity. Now the 
collective ownership of capital is becoming an historical 
necessity. 



SOCIALISM OR COMMUNISM 37 

That such is the trend of the time we can see at a 
glance from the discussion that is going on in the daily 
and weekly papers and in the magazines. 

But that trend is toward Socialism, not toward Com- 
munism. 

The measures that the Socialists will take and must 
take will closely connect with the present system and 
evolve from it. As a matter of fact, the collectivity — 
that is, the nation, the state and the community — ^will 
closely follow along the lines of what people have already 
long been doing, only they will do this from a Socialistic 
standpoint. 

So Collectivism is not Communism, and Karl Marx 
and Friedrich Engels, for instance, who in their early 
days were Communists, later on in life became Collecti- 
v^ists and Social-Democrats. Communism has often been 
tried and, outside of a few small religious communities, 
has failed. 

About 1840 there was a wave of Fourieristic Com- 
munism in this country. It was started by Albert Bris- 
bane, and some of the most brilliant and best men and 
women this country has ever produced participated in 
the experiments. But all the Communistic settlements 
where the religious and ascetic elements were lacking 
came to naught. 

Socialism, or Social-Democracy, has never been tried, 
because it will be the outcome of modern conditions — 
of the invention of machinery and the centralization of 
capital on one hand and the development of political 
democracy on the other. 



38 berger's broadsides 

Communism would be a step backward, would be a 
retrogression to a very primitive and low stage of human 
society. 

Social-Democracy will mean a step forward toward a 
higher civilization than history has ever known. 

Just to emphasize the difference between Collectivism 
and Communism — between the collective ownership of 
the means of production and distribution and the com- 
mon ownership of everything — there is nothing in Col- 
lectivism that will prevent people v/ho are so inclined 
from saving. 

They will be able to save just as much as they wish; 
they will be able to utilize their savings in any manner 
they choose with one single exception. They will not be 
able in any possible way to ''invest" their savings— that 
is to say, they will not he able to use their savings to 
make profit. 

Of course our capitalists will cry out, "What is the 
use of a man possessing a hundred thousand dollars if 
he cannot invest his money?'' which means, what is the 
use of a man possessing wealth if he cannot use it to 
work others and live himself without work? 

This, I will admit, is a grievance that cannot be helped. 

But it is a grievance that is no grievance: First, 
because under Collectivism there will not be the slightest 
necessity for individual saving with a view of providing 
for the future or old age, for care will be taken of 
every citizen. Second, there will be no encouragement 
for saving, for accumulating capital will be looked upon 
as the function of society, and not of the individual. 

But it is not my intention to describe the Co-operative 



GIVE THEM HOPE 39 

Commonwealth, the SociaHst Republic or any other state 
in this article. 

I have simply tried to bring out a few of the differ- 
ences between Socialism and Communism, and about 
these a great deal more may be said. 



Give Them Hope! 

Written in July, 1907. 

The most formidable obstacle in the way of further 
progress — and especially in the propaganda of Socialism 
— is not that men are insufficiently versed in political 
economy or lacking in intelligence. It is that people are 
without hope. 

Popular effort has so often been thwarted by selfish 
cunning — great moral enthusiasm has so often been dissi- 
pated by the suspicious organization of the ruling classes 
that men have lost heart. 

Despair is the chief opponent of progress. 

Our greatest need is hope. 

jfs He * 

Thi majority of our fellow workers know of public 
measures that would be beneficent — if an upward step 
were possible. But they claim it is impossible under the 
present system. Some of them wait for some great 
"revolution" that is to come "some day.'' Others do not 
wait for anything. They do not expect anything. They 
have lost hope. Why? 



40 berger's broadsides 

Both the so-called "revolutionists'* and the "let-it-go-as- 
it-is-men" are overwhelmed by a multitude of incidental 
obstacles which are in themselves of small account. 

Petty disappointments cloud the small horizons of these 
people. Thus they are shut off from the sight of the 
great universal and historic forces that are working for 
progress — for Socialism — and even for progress beyond 
Socialism, 

Only these forces work slowly. Slowly and surely. 

* He * 

Revolutions — and special evolutions — are brought about 
in human affairs not so much by the dissemination of a 
multitude of ideas, as by the concentration of a multitude 
of minds upon a single idea. 

And this idea must be near enough and comprehensive 
enough and of sufficient importance to stir the very soul 
of the masses. 

Mere theoretical or dogmatic phrases — no matter how 
'*clear-cut'' — are not capable of producing the universal 
enthusiasm required to institute any fundamental innova- 
tions. 

Besides, doctrinarism and dogmatism lead to splits and 
to the formation of political sects. But when people are 
constantly absorbed in doing things, and in preparing for 
still greater things, the petty jealousies and small causes 
for strife and dissension disappear. 

Furthermore, I say, we ought to have "uniformity" in 
general principles and general tactics only. We ought to 
leave minor details to the different state organizations. 
Especially where the movement is old and well rooted, 
where there are plenty of tried leaders and where the 



GIVE THEM HOPE 4X 

membership is experienced, they are fully capable of the 
righteous settlement of all incidental questions without 
interference from the outside. 

Instead of more uniformity we ought to have more 
unity. 

And we can gain this only when we leave details to the 
various subdivisions — and concentrate the efforts of our 
propaganda on the simple realities, self-evident and cap- 
able of being understood by all. 

The first such central truth, to be proclaimed tirelessly 
by every Social-Democrat, is that the earth is large 
enough and wide enough to supply all the good things of 
life to every human being born on it. 

Add to this that the triumphs of modern science make 
it possible for men to satisfy every natural craving, every 
healthy desire, every reasonable hope and dream, without 
any man being compelled to sacrifice another being for 
his purpose. 

This means that this world, now made a hell by human 
greed, abetted by ignorance and prejudice, might as well 
be a heaven. 

It means that the misery caused by capitalism on one 
hand and poverty on the other, can be displaced by happi- 
ness and plenty for all. 

Hi sic Jje 

Following this, one can demonstrate from history that 
this capitalist system did not always exist, but succeetled 
the feudal system, which had followed a system of slav- 
ery — each of these succeeding systems being better and 
more humane than its predecessor. 

And we can then easily show that the trusts are 
the natural outcome of capitalism and competition and 



42 berger's broadsides 

cannot be legislated out of existence as long as capitalism 

exists. 

* * * 

The immediate effect of the practical acceptance of 
these self-evident truths is always wonderful. 

Convince men that our country is large enough and 
rich enough to give them all an opportunity to work and 
earn enough to support their families in comfort, to edu- 
cate their children properly and to be absolutely secure in 
sickness and old age. 

Convince men that their present poverty is unnecessary. 

Proclaim that capitalism is simply a phase of civiliza- 
tion as feudalism was and Socialism will be — that noth- 
ing that is, lasts forever. 

Convince them of this and you have them "for good.'' 

Only take care not to have them tie their hopes for the 
future to any catastrophe that is to bring the millenium 
"at one stroke." Take care not to have them hope for 
any Messiah. 

It invariably leads to fatalism of one kind or the other 
and destroys the incentive for continuous and hard work 
at the present time. 

Fatalism is always fatal to real progress. 

^ Jfi * 

Therefore, Social-Democratic propagandists, do not 
weary your hearers w^ith statistics or the definitions of 
"surplus value." Do not confuse them by trying to ex- 
plain all the intricacies of. the capitalist system and by 
describing the beauties of the co-operative common- 
wealth. 

Teach them that in order to get a better world we shall 
have to work for it and fisfht for it. 



DOWN WITH THE SENATE 43 

Work and fight are the "Messiahs" of proletarians. 

Teach the proletariat that the highest patriotism con- 
sists in working and fighting for the new world. And 
that to work and to fight for it is the sublime mission of 
this generation and possibly also of the next. 

Nothing else in this world can compare with this work 
in importance. 



Down With the Senate, 

Written in January, 1907. 

In the state of Wisconsin we are about to elect a mem- 
ber of the United States Senate, a successor to John C. 
Spooner, resigned. It behooves us at this time to look 
into the matter of the existence of the United States 
Senate — the American House of Lords — the Millionaires' 
Qub — or the Chamber of Trustocrats — as it is variously 
called. 

I have nothing to say at this time about the candi- 
dates. I will only mention that the main candidate — the 
man who significantly enough is put forward by the 
reformers, and backed up by Senator Robert M. LaFol- 
lette — is Isaac M. Stephenson, a millionaire, and for 
years one of the main corrupters of Wisconsin politics, 
therefore very well qualified to take a position in that 
august body. 

For the United States Senate, the "Upper House" of 
our national legislature, was created for the very pur- 



44 berger's broadsides 

pose of representing the wealth and vested interests of 
the country, as Alexander Hamilton put it. And right 
from the beginning it was intended to ''form a check upon 
the will of the people." Therefore its selection was re- 
moved from the people as far as possible, and put into 
the hands of the respective legislatures. 

* * >K 

It is almost unnecessury to show what the United 
States Senate was from its beginning, and what it is now. 

We all know that it was the stronghold of the slave 
barons, compelling the solution of the slavery question by 
force of arms. We all know that it is the bulwark of the 
railroads and trusts now. 

The oil trust, the railway trust, the sugar trust, the 
steel trust, and every robber concern preying upon the 
common people have their representatives in the Senate. 
^ ^ ^ 

Under these conditions, and in view of the fact that 
the Social-Derriocratic program stands for the abolition 
of the Senate, it is of great interest to see what several 
world-famed writers have to say on the origin and the 
necessity of a second chamber — an "upper house" — in this 
country and elsewhere. 

>}j * * 

We will begin with the American writer, M. D. Con- 
way. 

Mr. Conway has made a careful treatise upon the sub- 
ject of the United States Senate, and I quote the follow- 
ing from his valuable work: 

*Tt was not at all necessary, when it was determined 
that the states should have a distinct representation in the 
congress, that they should also have a separate upper 



DOWN WITH THE SENATE 45 

house. The separation into two houses was accepted 
upon the precedent of the British Parliament, and on no 
real grounds whatever. 

''Of the original states, at the time of the adoption of 
the constitution, two had but one legislative chamber 
each, and the confederation of 1775 had no more. When 
the proposition was made to divide the congress into two 
branches, three states, the great state of New York 
among them, recorded their votes against it, and the dele- 
gation of another, Maryland, was equally divided on the 
subject. 

"There seems, however, to have been very little discus- 
sion of the matter, which was quite overshadowed by the 
incomparable urgency of the only question — the relative 
power of the states and the general government — ^which 
really was discussed in the cbnvention. The debates were 
in secret, and we have but brief notes of them; but a 
passage in the minutes, jotted down by one of the mem- 
bers, Chief Justice Yates, of New York, no doubt tells 
the whole story. — 'May 31, 1787. The third resolve, to 
wit : "that the national legislature ought to consist of two 
branches," was taken into consideration, and without any 
debate agreed to/ To this Judge Yates adds, in brackets : 
'N. B. — ^As a previous resolution had already been agreed 
to, to have a supreme legislature, I could not see any 
objection to its being in two branches.' 

"So lightly was a step taken, which has proved to be 
of momentous consequence to America." 

^ ^ ^ '-• 

It is a notable fact that, while the founders of the 
American constitution were taking up this relic of feudal- 
ism and clothing it with formidable power, the English 
nation was already preparing the forces which were to 



46 berge:r's broadsides 

reduce the House of Lords to the secondary position it 
now occupies. And as everybody knows, there is a strong 
tendency in England to abolish it altogether. 

After reading the statement of the American historian, 
it may assist us to consider the following from one of the 
ablest of recent writers on the English constitution, Mr. 
Bagehot. 

Mr. Bagehot, who is a defender of the **upper house'' 
to some extent, basing his defense upon the vices of the 
House of Commons, shows that since the reform act of 
1832, when the House of Lords for the last time really 
tried conclusions with the House of Commons, and was 
compelled to yield, it has not even had a pretension to 
being an equal branch of the government. "The House 
of Lords has become a revising and suspending house. 
It can alter bills ; it can reject bills, on which the House 
of Commons is not yet thoroughly in earnest, upon which 
the nation is not yet determinecx. 

"Their veto is a sort of hypothetical veto. 

"The Lords say, 'We reject your bill for this once, or 
these twice, or these thrice ; but if you keep on sending 
it up, at last we won't reject it.' The house has ceased 
to be one of latent direction, and has become one of tem- 
porary rejectors and palpable alterers." 

It is remarkable that it is impossible to find among the 
political thinkers in England a defender of the two-house 
principle on theoretical and logical grounds, 
iji ♦ ^ 

Having considered the views of the ablest defender of 
the continued existence of the House of Lords, let us 
turn to those of one of the many distinguished advocates 



DOWN WITH THE SENATE 47 

of the abolition of that house. I quote from Mr. Goldwin 
Smith, the famous Canadian scholar, formerly Professor 
of Modern History in the University of Oxford. 

Professor Smith writes : ''Not by reason or theory 
alone, , but by overwhelming experience, the House of 
Lords stands condemned, 

"""Who can point out a single great reform, however 
urgent, necessary or humanitarian, however signally rati- 
fied afterwards by the approbation of posterity, which the 
House of Lords has not thrown out, or obstructed, and, 
if it could do nothing more, damaged and mutilated to 
the utmost of its power ? 

"To make legislation on any important question pos- 
sible, it is necessary to get a storm sufficient to terrify 
the Peers. Thus, all important legislation is made violent 
and revohitionary. And this is your conservative institu- 
tion/' 

^ ^ ^ 

The most profound theoretical statement on the subject 
comes from Mr. John Stuart Mill, who, in his admirable 
''Vindications of the French Revolution of 1848,'' in re- 
ply to Lord Brougham and others, expresses the follow- 
ing opinions : 

"The great majority of mankind are, as a general rule, 
tenacious of things existing. Habit and custom pre- 
dominate with them, in almost all cases, over remote pro- 
spects of advantage. 

"The difficulty is not to prevent considerable changes, 
but to accomplish them when most essentially needful. 

"Any systematic provision in the constitution to render 
changes difficult is therefore superfluous — it is injurious. 

"It is true that in the times which accompany, or im- 



48 berger's broadsides 

mediately follow, a revolution, this tendency of the human 
mind may be temporarily reversed — partially, we say, for 
people are as tenacious of old customs and ways of think- 
ing, in the crisis of a revolution as at any other time, — 
on all points, except those on which they had become 
strongly excited by a perception of evils or grievances; 
those, in fact, on which the revolution itself hinges. 

"On such points, indeed, there may easily arise, at 
those periods, an ardor of ill-considered change. And it is 
at such times, if ever, that the check afforded by a second 
or *upper house' might be beneficial. 

''But these are the times when the resistance of such a 
body is practically null. The very arguments used by the 
supporters of the institution to make it endurable, assume 
that it cannot prolong its resistance in excited times. 

"An 'upper house' which, during a revolutionary 
period, should resolutely oppose itself to the branch. of 
the legislature more directly representing the excited 
state of popular feeling, would be infallibly swept away. 

"It is the destiny of an 'upper house' to become in- 
operative in the very cases in which its effective operation 
would have the best chance of producing less harm than 
good." ^ ^ ^ 

And no doubt John Stuart Mill is right about the 
conservation of the great masses. We cannot change by 
a legislative act or acts the habits and the mode of think- 
ing produced by generations. The greatest force in exist- 
ence in the cosmic world, as in the history of nations, is 
the force of inertia. This force which holds the globe in 
its place also prevents unnecessary revolutions. 

If any counter- force is necessary, it should rather be 
in favor of motion than of a standstill. 



DOWN WITH THE SENATE 49 

All that is necessary to give expression to this terrific 
counter-revolutionary power of inertia would be to give 
the masses the widest chance to speak their will. Give the 
people the full referendum, and God knows, progress will 
be slow enough. The referendum is the most conservative 
political power in existence, as the example of Switzer- 
land proves, where it has been in use for years. And yet 
the referendum is infinitely stronger than all senates in 
the world, because no democratic power is great enough 
to resist it. 

* * 5fS 

Why is it then that our plutocracy and our capitalists 
are afraid of it ? 

Why? 

The answer is simple enough. 

Because they feel that the present system has outlived 
its usefulness and has no more root among the masses of 
the people. 

But we say : abolish the senate. And for a good substi- 
tute and the best possible check upon any whimsical or 
hasty legislation, or even crookedness of the legislators, 
give us the referendum. 

The best cure for democracy invariably is more demo- 
cracy. 

Again I say: ''Down with the senate! Up with the 
referendum ! 

11. 

In order to fully understand the origin of the two 
chambers, or two houses of our legislative bodies, it 
may be interesting to look at the origin of parliament 
in ^England — the first constitutional government in 



50 berger's broadsides 

Europe — and the one after which our government is 
largely patterned. 

sK ^ Hi 

So far as any clear impression arises from the hazy 
annals of the earliest parliamentary government in Eng- 
land, it is that the king called upon the leading noble- 
men of the realm to become his guests for a time, for 
^purposes of consultation. There was very little consulta- 
tion, but very much drinking, eating and hunting. The 
king considered it his duty to feast his guests in grand 
style. This was the first and only parliament. 

To this assembly came groups of petitioners, deputa- 
tions from the people. These, in order that their hum- 
ble requests should be presented with some kind of 
regularity, had to organize their assemblies. They ap- 
pointed some mouthpiece or "speaker," — and this is how 
that most silent official of parliament bearing that name 
originated. 

For it IS in this group of deputations that we must 
recognize the embryo of the House of Commons. These 
petitioners or "commoners," for a time, sat in the pres- 
ence of the parliament of peers, until the latter thought 
it beneath their dignity to sit beside those of the com- 
mon herd. 

^ ^ ^ 

The separation probably occurred at the time when 
the "commoners" ceased to be a mere crowd of petition- 
ers to their lordships, and showed signs of becoming 
some little factor in the government. 

The House of Peers represented the supremacy of 
the aristocratic and clerical classes, of which the crown 
was the head. 



DOWN WITH THE SENATE 51 

The Commons represented the degree to which the 
people had managed to extort the first point, recognition 
of their existence, and ako the recognition of the sim- 
plest rights implied in that existence. 
^ ♦ ^ 

A recognition of their existence — that is all the com- 
mons had for a long time. 

And the lords? 

^ ^ ^ 

For three centuries, dating from the Tudor period, 
the House of Lords was the most powerful branch of 
the legislature. For a century, at least, it had, through 
its nominees and dependents, the virtual control of the 
other branch. Yet the lords did nothing but — digest. 

During the whole of that period, pressing subjects for 
legislation abounded, not only in the direction of political 
reform, but in all directions — legal, ecclesiastical, edu- 
cational, sanitary, and economical. Yet, in all those cen- 
turies, who can point out a single great measure of na- 
tional improvement which really emanated from, the 
House of Lords ? 

Not one. 

* Jk Jj: 

On the other hand, the House of Lords resisted pro- 
gress of any and all kinds as a matter of course, even 
in the Nineteenth century. 

As a matter of course, the House of Lords upheld the 
rotten boroughs and resisted the reform bill, till it was 
overcome by the threat of a swamping creation of peers, 
having first, in its wisdom, brought the nation to the 
verge of a civil war. 

As a matter of course, it resisted the progress of re- 



52 berger's broadsides 

ligious liberty, because the privileged church was an 
outwork of the privileged class. 

As a matter of course, it resisted the extension of 
habeas corpus and of personal liberty. 

As a matter of course, it resisted the removal of re- 
straints on the press. 

As a matter of course, it resisted introduction of the 
ballot. 

Yet that was all natural enough because these were 
measures and movements which threatened political privi- 
lege. 

^ ♦ ijj 

But the House of Lords has also resisted common 
measures of humanity, such as the abolition of the slave 
trade and the reform of criminal law. Romilly's petty 
theft bill, which stopped hanging as a punishment for 
stealing over six shillings, was thrown out by the lords ; 
and among the thirty-two who voted in the majority on 
this occasion, were seven bishops. On all subjects about 
which popular opinion was not strongly excited, includ- 
ing many of the greatest importance to national progress, 
reformers in England have abstained from moving, be- 
cause they despaired of overcoming the resistance of 
the House of Lords. And that will not change until the 
Social-Democrats become a powerful factor in English 
government. 

* jjs * 

That is the history of the House of Lords in England. 

The history of the United States Senate, if anything. 
is worse. The hereditary legislator in England is, no 
doubt, a thoroughly class-conscious exploiter. But no- 
blesse oblige — they were not common grafters— at least 



DOWN WITH THE SENATE 53 

not as a rule. But the class legislator in our Senate is 
not only a class exploiter — or the attorney and repre- 
sentative of a robber concern — but, as a rule, a grafter 
besides. 

There are a very few honest men in the Senate. And 
even those are very soon thoroughly spoiled by the make- 
up, by the history, and by the very atmosphere of that 
''august body." 

If any one doubts this statement, let him read what 
any thoughtful writer has said about the United States 
Senate. Let him read the brilliant series of articles on 
"The Treason of the Senate," by that earnest and apos- 
tolic man, David Graham Phillips. 

It is said there must be in a federal government some 
institution, some authority, somebody possessing a veto, 
in which the separate states composing the confedera- 
tion are all equal. I confess this doctrine has to me 
no self-evidence. The state of Delaware is not equal 
in power or influence to the state of New York, and one 
cannot make it so by giving it an equal veto in the Sen- 
ate. 

The other argument — the necessity of a counterpoise or 
counterbalance, or of a check against bad legislation — 
looks a little better. But if one considers it closer, it is 
even worse. Most good legislation is always opposed 
in the ''upper house" — most of the bad legislation al- 
ways originated there. 

If there is any correction to be done in a democracy- 
then let democracy do it. If there is a corrective needed, 
let democracy provide for it. 



54 berger's broadsides 

Again I say: abolish the Senate. And for a good 
substitute and best possible check upon any whimsical 
or hasty legislation, or even crookedness of the legis- 
lators, give us the referendum. The referendum in any 
country is stronger than all the houses of lords and sen- 
ates in the world. 

The best cure for any evils arising from democracy 
is — more democracy. 



An Outworn Garment. 

Written in June, 1907. 

Aristotle, the great Greek philosopher, in his famous 
work on politics, described the constitutions of all the 
different states known to him. And he said that the 
state existed longest and prospered most which was readi- 
est to change its constitution and adapt it to changed con- 
ditions. 

This rule holds good today. It holds good for the 
United States, and for the state of Wisconsin. 

jfs ^ ^ 

Our last constitution was adopted in 1848. At that 
time, Wisconsin was virtually a frontier state. The great- 
est part of it was covered with one vast primeval forest. 
The largest city, Milwaukee, had about 30,000 inhabi- 
tants. There were only a few towns which had a popula- 
tion of from two to five thousand. 



AX OUTWORN GARMENT 55 

Manufacturing in the United States was then in its 
childhood, and there was liardly any manufacturing done 
in a border state like Wisconsin. Corporations in the 
present sense were not known. v 

In those days a corporation meant a city or a township. 
There were no railroads, no telegraphs, no telephones, and 
of course, no street cars. Public schools were few and 
far between. A man who could read and "reckon'' was 
looked up to as a wizard in very many country places. 
Capitalism in its present form and development was not 
even dreamt of. 

The constitution adopted at that time, of course, was 
made to suit those conditions. It was made to express 
the needs of a frontier state. It reflected the political, 
social and economic conditions of the day. 

ik * ♦ • 

What a great difference between the Wisconsin of 1907 
and the Wisconsin of the Black Hawk war ! Today Wis- 
consin is the seventh state in the Union as far as manu- 
facturing is concerned. The total output of manufactured 
products was $360,818,942 in 1900. 

In 1848 we had no proletariat in the present sense. 
Entirely new classes have come into existence since that 
time. In 1848 any man with a strong pair of arms and 
moderately good habits could not only make his living 
comfortably, but also lay the foundation for a prosperous 
second generation by simply sticking to the land. Today 
we have not only an economically powerful class of capi- 
talists, but also a very numerous proletariat which to all 
ends and purposes has become a fixed class. 

We have tremendous aggregations of capital, big rail- 
road companies, public service corporations, and greedy 



56 berger's broab'stt^^' 

and grasping corporations of all kinds. Their oppressive 
power is felt by the last pioneer farmer in the northern 
part of the state. 

In 1848 the only evil influence which the people seemed 
to fear was the issuing of wild-cat money by the banks. 
And the people took especial pains to provide against this 
in their constitution. Today there is no wild-cat money. 
The bank money is good enough if we can get hold of 
it. But the banks themselves have become simply the 
handmaids of the big corporations and trusts. 

The economic conditions have changed absolutely. 
^ ^ ^ 

Now, if we were influenced only by party motives, we 
should simply say, ''Keep your old constitution. Under 
the present constitution, our legislature cannot m^ke 
good laws. All good laws, such as are made to fit changed 
conditions, are necessarily unconstitutional. And if no 
laws are made to alleviate the hardships of the people, 
the people will, of necessity, become revolutionary and 
Social-Democratic." 

So, from a Socialistic party standpoint, the present 
constitution would be just the very thing we should want. 

But this is not the way we reason. We have so much 
confidence in the righteousness of our cause and the in- 
evitableness of Socialism, that we know that even the 
strongest constitution cannot stop our progress in the 
end. On the other hand, a good and timely constitution 
will do away with a great deal of avoidable friction. It 
will make sane and constructive progress possible. 

5|S * * 

I will just mention a few details of our constitution a** 
they happen to come to my mind. 



AN OUTWORN GARMENT 57 

There Is, for instance, the item of compensation for 
the state school superintendent. That was fixed in 1848 
at $1,200 a year and w^as sufficient for that time. But the 
state school superintendent still gets only $1,200, although 
the salary of the superintendent of the Milwaukee public 
schools is $6,000 annually. In order to get a state school 
superintendent who is in any way competent for the posi- 
tion, resort is made to a form of graft. The superinten- 
dent is given a number of clerkships, which he does not 
fill, but draws the salaries. Now, if this should be done in 
any other position, it might be considered a criminal 
offense. Yet that is the only way that the office of state 
school superintendent can be upheld. 

* 5|S * 

Another important point is the way the corporation^ 
are treated. In our constitution, only the cities and town- 
ships are mentioned as corporations. Virtually, the Mil- 
waukee street railway company and the city of Milwau- 
kee are on the same level, as far as the constitution is 
concerned, although one represents men and the other 
represents only dollars. 

The power of cities is exceedingly limited. Milwaukee, 
for instance, a city of 350,000 inhabitants, has no home 
rule whatsoever. Even in small matters, it Is absolutely 
governed by the legislature. Now these legislators may 
be well-meaning men, but they are men from up state 
who know little or nothing about the vital needs of a 
large city like Milwaukee. In 1848, that was all well 
enough. There were then no large cities in Wisconsin 
and the conditions were very much the same in all parts 
of the state. Today this arrangement is obsolete and 
dangerous, and is the cause of a great deal of hardship 
and even of graft. 



58 berger's broadsides 

Another point. The state cannot be a party to any 
interior improvement under our present constitution. So 
the great state of Wisconsin has not the power to build 
a little wagon road two miles long.^Its own constitution 
forbids that. 



Amendments to the constitution are very cumbersome. 
They have first to pass through two consecutive legis- 
latures, w^hich in itself is very difficult, on account of 
certain vested interests which like to fish in the muddled 
w^aters of our constitution. Then each amendment must 
be signed by the governor, and afterwards voted upon by 
the people, before it is adopted. 

And, at best, such amendments can be only patch-work. 
The constitution was made for a state in its childhood. 
This same state has since come to maturity. The con- 
stitution is simply a cloak for our body politic. To com- 
pel us to live under our present constitution is very much 
like compelling a grown person to v/ear baby clothes. 

But it has been said by some ultra-conservative people 
who hate everything that looks like a change, that the 
lawyers and the courts understand this constitution and 
knov/ how^ to interpret the laws accordingly. They would 
first have to learn a new constitution, and this v/ould 
make trouble. 

Now, in the first place, the constitution is not made for 
the lawyers and for the courts, but ought to be made for 
the people. 

We all know that every law is interpreted in three 
or four different v/ays, according to the personal likes 
and prejudices of the lawyers and the courts. Even the 



AN OUTWORN GARMENT 59 

decisions of the Supreme courts have been fearfully in- 
consistent. A tremendous amount of injustice and bar- 
barism is rampant, on account of our antiquated constitu- 
tion. 

sk ^< Jjs 

I repeat that the constitution of Vv^isconsin was all well 
enough in 1S48 and for its day and its conditions. So 
were the constitutions of Crete, of Carthage, and of 
Sparta, in their time. Aristotle mentions them as model 
constitutions. But would we want to apply them to Wis- 
consin ? 

And are we to be tied to an antiquated document for 
the sole reason that some vested interests worship it as a 
fetich, because there is no efficient v/ay to curb them 
under this constitution? Because, when the constitution 
w^as framed, their existence vv^as not foreseen? 

Are we to live forever under a constitution which 
makes provision against duelling, but none against trusts ? 

This is one of the questions that our present legislature 
has failed to answer. 



60 berger's broadsides 



Do We Worship a Fetich? 

Written in June, 1908. 

The Evening Wisconsin, Milwaukee, says editorially: 
Here is a plank from the National Socialist platform, as 

published in Victor Berger's SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC 

HERALD: 

The absolute freedom of press, speech and assemblage, as guaranteed 

by the Constitution. 

A respectful reference to the Constitution of the United 
States in an official utterance of the Socialists is so unusual 
that it may be deemed worthy of especial attention. But 
here are some of the other planks of the same National 
Socialist platform. They are taken from the section labeled 
**Political Demands:'' 

The abolition of the Senate. 

The abolition of the veto power of the president. 

The abolition of the power usurped by the Supreme Court of the 
United States to pass upon legislation enacted by Congress as to its 
constitutionality. National laws passed by Congress to be repealed or 
abrogated only by act of Congress or by a referendum of the whole 
people. 

Thus it appears that the respectful reference to the Con- 
stitution is not to be taken seriously — that the Socialist party 
is against the enforcement of the Constitution — against 
American institutions. This attitude of hostility to the Con- 
stitution is exhibited in another of the shorter planks of the 
National Socialist platform: 

That the Constitution be amendable by majority vote. 
But this plank is a mere redundancy. What would be the 
need of going to the trouble of amending the Constitution 



DO WE WORSHIP A FETICH 61 

if unconstitutional legislation by Congress could not be chal- 
lenged and appealed from the legislative to the judicial 
branch of the government and declared null and void by the 
Supreme Court? 

The Socialist platform is a wild, visionary, revolutionary 
farrago, unpatriotic to the core, at war with American tradi- 
tions, principles and instincts — a political crazy-quilt. 

It will fail to command the support of a great many voters 
who in local elections have cast their ballots for the candi- 
dates of the Social-Democratic party. 

(Evening Wisconsin.) 

At the time of its adoption no one considered the con- 
stitution of the United States anything but a miserable 
piece of patchwork — a stupid imitation of the English 
constitution — which had to be amended a dozen times be- 
fore it could be adopted by the thirteen original states. 
It really satisfied nobody. 

However, by and by it dawned upon the Southern 
slave barons that they could hide behind this constitution 
to defend black slavery. They were right about that, 
and it took a terrMc war to patch up and amend once 
more what had been poor patch-work to begin with. 
^ ^ ^ 

After the war the growing capitalist class, which for 
a while had been very much dissatisfied with the consti- 
tution, found out that, just because the constitution 
was antiquated and unsatisfactory, the capitalists 
could make the same use of it for their own ends as did 
the slave barons for theirs. So the constitution became 
a blessed and holy document once more. It was again, 
in the seventies and eighties, the fetich of every lawyer 
and every school teacher. Only it was then the Northern 
fetich. The fervor of the South had been rather chilled 
by the^"niggers' amendments," as the result of the war. 



62 berger's broadsides 

However, the South has found a way to get around 
these amendments. And the unthinking of the Nori^h 
and the South unite in doing reverence to a poor make- 
shift which tried to combine the constitutional ideas of 
Montesquieu with the archaic conception of an execu- 
tive with despotic powers, as borrowed by Hamilton from 
the English constitution. 

But the intelligent men of all classes during the last 20 
years have become convinced that our constitution must 
be changed. Not only the proletariat and the middle class 
demand this, but even the plutocrats admit it. Only 
men, who, Rip Van Winkle-like, have slumbered in a 
sleepy hollow on the corner of Michigan and Milwaukee 
streets, seem to know nothing about this necessity. 

* * 5JJ 

No doubt there were many leading men at the close 
of the American Revolution who were in favor of adopt- 
ing the British constitution, as they understood it. Only 
this being a republic, they were very much more afraid 
of the people, of the mob, than they w^ould have been in 
a monarchy. They admitted that. Therefore they wanted 
a strong executive, *'one that could dare to execute his 
powers'' — as Hamilton stated it. 

That is how we got our kind of a president for the 
United States. That is also the reason why we have the 
Senate — "to represent the wealthy and the better class 
of our land." 

And that is the reason why we have the "additional 
check'' by the courts. 

Everybody was not satisfied with this. 

Thomas Jefferson, of course, was not. 



DO WE WORSHIP A FETICH 63 

But even at a much later day Henry Qay compared 
our presidency to *'an elective monarchy — the worst form 
of old governments." 

And he was right, inasmuch as with the exception of 
the Czar of Russia, there is not a monarch in the world 
who has as much power as the President of the United 
States. He is not only the chief executive, but also a 
part of the law-making machine — and what part! He 
counts as much as two-thirds of the House of Repre- 
sentatives and the Senate combined. No wonder that 
even Daniel Webster once said, *'The contest for ages 
has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive 
power. The President carries on the government; all 
the rest are only sub-contractors. A Briareus sits in the 
center of our system, and with his hundred hands touches 
everything, moves everything, controls everything. I ask, 
is this republicanism ? Is this a government of laws ?'' 

i|C ^ ^ 

And it is almost unnecessary to show what the United 
.States Senate was from its beginning, and what it is 
now. 

He H^ ^ 

However, even the Senate is not "in it" as an obstacle 
to progress and justice when compared with the position 
our judiciary occupies as an illegitimate part of our law- 
making body — and in telling the people what they rnay 
want and what they may not. 

And this monstrous guardianship of the judiciary over 
the people, dictating to them what is law and what is 
not, is purely an American institution. 

No other nation in the world has it. No other nation 
in the world would stand for it. 



64 berger's broadsides 

The British constitution, of which ours is otherwise a 
faithful copy, knows nothing Hke it. The germ of the 
disease was put into our constitution by the conserva- 
tives of the type of Alexander Hamilton and had the 
warm support of all the ex-Royalists — ^but the disease 
was developed by the shrewd manipulations of some 
supreme justices. 

The Hamilton clique had created the Senate to take 
the place of the House of Lords. Yet it was still afraid 
of the common people. It wanted something in the 
place of the king. And, mind you, not the constitutional 
King of England either. They wanted the absolute 
king of the Fifteenth or Sixteenth centuries, and they got 
him. He is our American judge. 

And this King Judge and his retinue of lawyers is now 
the distinguishing mark between the American people 
and all others on earth. And perhaps the most danger- 
ous judge to the rights of the people is the Federal judge. 
Federal judges are appointed by the President of the 
United States upon the recommendation of our promi- 
nent business men, that is upon the recommendation of 
our railroad presidents and millionaire manufacturers. 

, The federal judge almost invariably is a corporation 
lawyer. He is appointed for life — and his very environ- 
ment makes him part and parcel of the American plu- 
tocracy. 

The Federal judge nowadays looks down upon the 
state judiciary very much in the same way as the regu- 
lar army looks down upon the militia. 

Every federal judge nowadays is an enemy of our 
democratic institutions and an adversary of the common 
people. Every federal judge becomes a regular fiend 



DO WE WORSHIP A FETICH 65 

when he has to decide questions regarding the rights of 
the laboring class. 

The federal judiciary of the United States is the last 
resort of the corporations, railroads and all kinds of plu- 
tocratic evil-doers in their straits. There they can get 
help and comfort when the legislators, whom they usual- 
ly own, become frightened at the anger of the people. 
There they can get ''injunctions" galore, or judge-made 
law to suit every occasion. 

This constitution has never been changed except by 
bloody war. 

It takes a two-thirds majority of Congress, and in ad- 
dition thereto a majority of three-fourths of the legisla- 
tures of all the states, to change it. And that can never 
be gotten. As it stands now% the constitution can only be 
changed by revolutions and a sea of blood. 

We Socialists want a constitution that can be amended 
by a majority vote of all the people. The American gov- 
ernment is a democracy — at least it pretends to be one. 
The people ought to rule. 

And every law passed by our representatives ought to 
hold good unless repealed by our law-givers, or rejected 
by a majority of the people. 

Is this idea of majority rule — "a wild, visionary, revo- 
lutionary farrago, unpatriotic to the core, at war with 
American traditions, principles and instincts?" 

However, the capitalists make the fatal mistake of their 
very existence when they trust to judges and senates to 
check the will of an enraged people. 

An "upper house" which, during a revolutionary period, 
should resolutely oppose itself to the branch of the legis- 



66 berger's broadsides 

lature more directly representing the excited state of 
popular feeling would be infallibly swept away. And 
consult any history as to what became of the kings and 
judges in either the English or the French revolutions. 
As to the "judges," they simply cease to exist at the 
very first outbreak. 

11. 

At the time of its adoption no one considered the constitution of the 
United States anything but a -miserable piece of patchwork — a stupid 
imitation of the English constitution — which had to be amended a dozen 
times before it could be adopted by the thirteen original states. It really 
satisfied nobody. — (Victor Berger in Social-Democratic Herald.) 

The same miserable piece of patchwork, which satisfied 
nobody, was nevertheless adopted by the thirteen original 
^states before it was amended at all; and it has stood the test 
of 120 years so well as to prove that if it is a stupid imita- 
tion of the English constitution, it is an imitation of a very 
good thing. And how does Mr. Berger know that the United 
States constitution is an imitation — stupid or otherwise — of 
the English constitution? Has he ever read the English con- 
stitution, and can he tell where a copy of it — another copy 
than his — may be found? (Milwaukee Free Press.) 

Everybody who knows anything about the constitu- 
tions of different countries, knows that England is a 
constitutional monarchy, and ha^ a constitution. And he 
also knows that the English constitution is not a written 
constitution like the French, German, Swiss, etc., but an 
unwritten constitution based upon the growth of the Eng- 
lish institutions since the Magna Charta. And if the edi- 
torial writer of the Free Press does no{ know this, he has 
no right to write about these things. 

However, all this worship of the constitution is at par 
with the fetich worship of our ancestors io,ooo years 



DO WE WORSHIP A FETICH 67 

ago. At that time they worshipped fetiches of wood and 
stone, and now they worship a paper fetich. But what is 
the difference? A fetich is a fetich. 

:j? ^ ^ 

A constitution is simply the cloak for our body politic. 
A garment that may have fitted us well in 1788, wher 
this nation was in its swaddling clothes, cannot possibly 
fit us today. We do not revere Cotton Mather's book on 
witchcraft, which was considered the greatest book of 
his time by his contemporaries. Now why should we 
worship a document which was patched together 120 years 
ago by a lot of gentlemen wearing knee pants and — 
knowing nothing about railroads, telegraphs, corporations 
and trusts ? 

The editorial writer of the Free Press would not want 
his son to wear the clothes he wore when he was a baby. 
I do not believe his son would look very well in them. 
The editorial writer of the Free Press would not want 
the Free Press to use the antiquated facilities which Ben- 
jamin Franklin used. I do not believe that with these 
the Free Press could very well compete with the SentineL 
But why should our country be compelled to suffer under 
the anomalies, inequalities and shortcomings of a docu- 
ment which even 120 years ago was only passed after 
wire pulling of all kinds — a document which even 120 
years ago satisfied nobody — w^hy? 

ijc if; * 

But, says the Milwaukee Free Press, the constitutiori 
has "stood the test of 120 years so well as to prove that 
if it is a stupid imitation of the English constitution, it 
is an imitation of a very good thing." 

It was not on account of the constitution that this 
country has flourished. It was siinply on account of our 



68 berger's broadsides 

colonial conditions, our virgin soil and apparently inex- 
haustible resources. Our people practically tried to use 
up in a few generations the resources that nature had 
stored up in many thousands or, in some instances, many 
millions of years — to use them all up, if possible, in lOO 
or 150 years. This was the richest country on the face 
of the globe, that is why w^e prospered and probably 
would have prospered even more if we had had no con- 
stitution at all. Whenever and wherever this constitu- 
tion was subjected to any test, as for instance in i860, 
then this constitution did not stand the test. 

Under present conditions the American people are as 
absolutely prevented from exercising their full political 
power as the people of Russia or of China. 

Everybody except a few^ moss-backs, of the tA'pe of the 
editorial writer of the Free Press, admits that our federal 
constitution is exceedingly clumsy and defective, yet it 
practically cannot be amended except by a revolution and 
by force of arms. 

So great are the difficulties of amendment that in ef- 
fect they are insurmountable. I believe that we could 
just as soon overthrow the entire government and the 
capitalist system as amend this miserable constitution. 

* * * 

However, this also is to admit that we are bound by a 
most stupid fetich, and by old chains, which were put 
around us 120 years ago. It means practically an admis- 
sion that the American people have not free institutions, 
are not a free people, and that they declare themselves 
unfit for a republican form of government. And this 
should be so stated by all those who defend the present 
constitution. 



WORDS OF THE SAINTS 69 



Words of the Saints. 

Written in October, 1906. 

The Catholics recently held their annual convention in 
Buffalo, N. Y. The Socialists, as usual, were bitterly 
attacked. 

Several speakers again declared that the Socialists were 
on a level with thieves because they do not recognize the 
present ''legal" property system. 

Other speakers, for instance Archbishop Messmer, ac- 
knowledged that Socialism contained ''much that is good.'' 
But Messmer fiercely assailed the plank in the Social- 
Democratic platform that ''religion is a matter of private 
concern/' This our friend Messmer pronounced god- 
less and wicked, and therefore every Catholic should 
fight Socialism. 

And before we go any further I want to state again 
that this fight with the Roman Catholic church is dis- 
agreeable to us, because it brings the element of re- 
ligion into a purely economical and political matter. I 
am free to say that we would rather run away from this 
fight if we could. But we cannot, the "holy'' church 
would not let us. So "willy nilly" we must defend our- 
selves against the "dear old priests." 



70 berger's broadsides 

Archbishop Messmer's argument is not hard to answer, 
because we do not yet have any state church in America. 

We willingly believe that our archbishop and other 
priests of his type wish that the Roman Catholic church 
in America was made the state church. He also hopes 
that this will be done some day with the help of the big 
capitalists who, whether Protestant, Jewish, or heathen, 
see in the Roman Catholic church their last bulwark. And 
we also know that the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, Goulds, 
etc., would go right over to the Roman Catholic church 
if such a re-enforcement of that church were necessary 
for the preservation of the present system. Even now 
they are munificent towards the church. 

Yet a state church will never exist in America. To 
begin with, its establishment would require one of the 
most terrible civil wars the world has ever known. True, 
the church has started such wars before. But the fact 
is, even if the Roman Catholic church allied with the 
capitalists should conquer once, and even if it should con- 
quer ten times, it could never maintain its rule in the 
long run. 

It has^'ust lost its rule once more in France. 

Therefore I should advise our friend Messmer that 
it would be better for the Roman Catholic church to 
adopt the Social-Democratic principle, ''Religion is a 
private affair." This maxim is generally accepted in 
America. And yet the ''only holy church" is doing a Une 
business here. Just consider its growth during the last 
twenty years. 

Furthermore I should advise our friend Messmer 
not to accept annual passes — we mean annual passes, not 
clergyman's half fares — from so many railroads. It 



WORDS OF THE SAINTS 71 

looks bad when the archbishop has to shuffle them like a 
pack of cards before he finds the particular pasteboard 
that gives him a free ride to Chicago. The archbishop 
is getting money enough to live like a grand duke — he 
smokes the best cigars and drinks the most expensive 
liquors — and he ought to be able to pay his fares. Some 
unbelievers and heretics might be inclined to consider 
the "annual pass" as one of the connecting links between 
the hierarchy and the railroad magnates. 
So much for our friend Messmer. 

^ ^ sjs 

But to the other brothers in Christ who reproach the 
Socialists with being on a ''level with thieves" because 
they regard the present property system as unjust y anti- 
social and the source of social disorder, I will say this. 
Not we, but the capitalists and their defenders stand 
on a ''level with thieves.'' Capitalist ownership is con- 
tinuous graft and alienation. The working people have 
produced all the wealth, the capitalists have simply con- 
fiscated it and are confiscating it every day. 

Of course this continuous graft and ''alienation" is 
now legal and passes for ownership. 

The present laws are made just by the ruling class, 
and in their interest. They represent might and not right, 

And as soon as this sort of thing has gone a little toQ 
far for the people to endure, they will surely proceed to 
restitution. 

Our opponents, the capitalists, may call this "expro- 
priation." But we do not care what they call it as long 
as it is done. And expropriation also sounds well to us. 

Just here I wish to explain that the advocates of the 
new order of society will use the extreme application of 



72 BERGER^S BROADSIDES 

their principles — that is, the expropriation of the capi- 
talist class — for the general use, for collective ownership 
and not to put other men personally in possession of land, 
machines and other means of production. 

* * * 

By the way, in former centuries, the holy church often 
undertook such expropriation of heretics or those who 
did not follow its blessed doctrines. And this was done 
for the private use of lords, bishops, cloisters, etc. And 
usually they took away the children also, after the par- 
ents had been killed or driven away. 

And the pious in the land always regarded such **ex- 
propriations" as godly acts and sang "Te deums" and 
other praises to God in the Roman Catholic churches. 

Later on, of course, when in the Reformation period 
the Protestants played the same game against the bishops 
and cloisters, the church did curse it as outright robbery. 

But then the Protestant preachers on their side thought 
the deed was good. And they praised God for it and 
gave thanks. 

So the Lord, at least, was praised any way. 

^ 5k i}i 

Li other words, the thing was always legal, when it 
was done by the strongest party. And we hereby sol- 
emnly promise not to undertake any expropriation until 
we have the power. 

And we will take only "means of production" and we 
will harm nobody. 

And after it is done, those of us^ who are pious will, 
no doubt, thank God for it. And the Lord, at least, 
will be praised any way. 



WORDS OF THE SAINTS 73 

Moreover, we do not have to rummage the history of 
former times for example and precedents. Even today 
expropriations are made by the federal, state and city 
governments, when for any reason they are considered 
necessary. 

In later issues we may take occasion to return to this 
subject. 

But today, for the profit and edification of the brothers 
in Christ who cursed us in Buffalo, we wish to cite the 
opinions of the saints on the expropriation question. 

jjc ^ Hi 

St. Luke writes of the Christian community at Jeru- 
salem, ''And the multitude of them that believed were 
of one heart and of one soul; neither said any of them 
that aught of the things which he possessed was his own ; 
but they had all things in common. — Neither was there 
any among them that lacked, for as many as were pos- 
sessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the 
price of the things that were sold, and laid them down 
at the apostles* feet; and distribution was made unto 
every man according as he had need.'' — (Acts. IV, 2^^- 

350 

Now that is clear communism. 

Indeed, it was the logical application of the command, 
*'Go sell all that thou hast and give to the poor.'' 

If the communists are in need of a patron saint, they 
ought to take St. Luke. 

The fathers of the church, St. Chrysostom, St. Hie- 
ronymus, St. Basil, St. Gregory, St. Qement and St. Am- 
brose express themselves with equal clearness. 

*'It is not without reason/' says Hieronymus, "that the 
gospel calls earthly riches 'unrighteous mammon/ since 



74 berger's broadsides 

they have their source in injustice, for one cannot pos- 
sess them except through the ruin of others. It is even 
a common saying that they who possess them are rich 
only through their own injustice or the injustice of those 
whose heirs they are." — (Works of St. Hieronymus, pub- 
lished by Malongues, Paris, 1678.) 

St. Chrysostom denounces the grain usurers. 

^'The land lay dry, parched by the sun, the fruits could 
not grow, famine threatened. Suddenly black clouds 
rolled up, it rained, deliverance came, every one rejoiced 
— except one rich man. When he was asked the reason, 
he said: 'I had stored up ten thousand bushels of wheat, 
and now I do not know what to do with it/ 

''Does he not deserve to be quartered as an enemy of 
the community ?" asked St. Chrysostom. 

St. Chrysostom must have received the anarchist John 
Most with open arms, when he got to heaven. 

5j{ ^ ^ 

And the good saint is no less radical where he speaks 
of property in general: 

"For one to use his property only for himself is to rob 
the poor of it, that is, to play the robber with the property 
of another, and subject himself to all the penalties which 
threaten him who steals. What thou may est keep for 
thyself is that which is really necessary, the rest belongs 
to the poor. It is his property and not thine." — (St. 
Chrysostom, Bibliothek der Kirchenvaeter, Vol. 19, pages 
27, 35. 40, 51 and 52.) 

St. Gregory says, "The earth is the common property 
of all men ; it is vain for those to think themselves inno- 
cent who appropriate to themselves alone the wealth 
which God gave to all men in common. When they do 



WORDS OF THE SAINTS 75 

not share with others what they have received they be- 
come man-slayers/' (''Des Soins et des Devoirs des Pas- 
teurs/' XXI, pages 303 and 304, Lyons, 1682.) 

Pope Basil the Great proclaimed these truths. 

'*Art thou not a thief, thou who appropriatest to thy- 
self that which thou hast only received in order to dis- 
tribute it? If he is called a thief who takes one piece of 
clothing, can any other name be given to him who, see- 
ing before him a naked man, can clothe him, and yet 
leaves him naked? The rich have just got into their pos- 
session the communal wealthy and make of it private 
property/' (Sur TAvarice, by Victor Meunier, page 23.) 

No Socialist could speak with more fervor. 
^ ^ ^ 

St. Clement makes communism or communistic own- 
ership an article of faith when he says : 

"The communal life is a duty for all men. It is in- 
justice which permits one man to say, 'This is mine,' an- 
other, 'This belongs to me.' From this has come in- 
equahty among men." 

Now that is a good deal more than any Social-Demo- 
crat ever asked. 

In conclusion, also hear the father of the church, St. 
Ambrose. 

"God created all things to let every one enjoy them and 
to make the earth the property of all. Nature originated 
communist right, and it is force which has produced the 
rights of property. Since the earth was given to all in 
common, no one can call himself the owner of what ex- 
ceeds his natural needs ; what is over and above this, he 
has alienated from society." (St. Ambrose, Sermon 64 on 
Luke, Chap. 16.) 



76 berger's broadsides 

Well, this is a small selection from the writings of 
men who lived in ages when the ''rights of property" 
had not by far such ruinous consequences for the masses 
of the people as in this century of "culture and civiliza- 
tion." 

And I ask our friend Messmer, who has studied 
church history, and knows his saints as well as I do, 
whether I have not quoted them correctly? 

Let him show me one single misquotation, and I will 
buy a five-pound candle at Candlemas for the Capuchin 
church, to be lit before the statue of the saint that I 
have misquoted. 

And of this be sure, dear Christians — these saints, if 
they were living today, would be Socialists. 



FREEDOM HAS FLED 77 



Freedom Has Fled! 

Written July 2, 1904. 

WE AGAIN celebrate the Fourth of July and the 
establishment of this Republic. 

It is obvious that if the fathers of this republic had 
any special object in throwing off the old form of gov- 
ernment, it could be no other than the advancement of 
the general interests in opposition to the interests of the 
king and of the privileged classes, which were paramount 
under former governments. But casting aside the high- 
sounding phraseology of declarations and proclamations, 
which characterized those days, and considering only the 
results as they stand before us, what shall we say of the 
fathers of this republic ? What shall we say of the incon- 
sistencies which pervade their proclamations and render 
them void in some of their most material points concern- 
ing the rights of the people? Thus, after declaring that 
all men are horn equal and continue equal in rights, 
they gravely affirmed that property (which all men have 
not) is an inviolable and sacred right, of which no one 
can be deprived ! 

Where is the equality? 

One man is born in poverty, with all that poverty im- 
plies ; another is born in affluence, with all the advantages 
affluence brings. One has before him a future of hard 



78 berger's broadsides 

labor simply to maintain existence, the other is destined 
to inherit all that is most desirable in life. One owns 
princely estates, the other has hardly a roof over his 
head ; yet both are said to be born and to continue equal 
in rights ! 

Where is the equality? 

They claim that there are no social distinctions, no 
classes in America. What nonsense! Has there ever 
existed a greater social distinction than exists between 
the millionaire and common proletarian in America at 
the present time? Is there in any country a more pro- 
nounced difference between the employing class and the 
working class than in these United States? Is there a 
ruling class on God's world more arrogant than the 
capitalist class of America? Is there a working people 
on earth more down-trodden than the workingmen of 
Colorado ? 

* 5K Jf? 

But to come back to the celebration of the establish- 
ment of this Republic. We ask again, where, as far as 
actual effects go, is the much talked of superiority of the 
republican over the monarchical system ? Is it that the civil 
list of the president is small compared with that of an 
emperor? What, beyond a moral lesson, is taught by 
curtailing the expenditures of one individual? He is 
denied a royal revenue and the splendors of a court, yet 
his power is greater than that of most modern sover- 
eigns. 

Do we actually have a Res Publica? In what respect? 
Titles, which in themselves are harmless, were abolished ; 
but the privileges of excessive wealth, which are a public 
danger, are maintained. The spirit of 1776 overthrew 



FREEDOM HAvS FLED 



79 



the Monarchy as the oppressor and proclaimed the Re- 
public as the benefactor ; yet one looks in vain through 
English history for an example of the American spirit 
of 1904 as it manifests itself in Colorado today. This 
democratic Republic shelters a host of proud trustocrats, 
who, conscious of their power, use the troops of the state 
to lord it over the land regardless of any laws that may 
exist. 

This people-loving government serves a class of favor- 
ed plutocrats who enjoy more than princely incomes and 
whenever they so choose, indulge in more than princely 
excesses on the poor and defenseless multitude. This 
wonderful republic suffers our money kings to form 
combinations and trusts whereby they are enabled to 
exercise the sovereign right of levying on the governed, 
and to tax them in all kinds of ways, for the personal 
support and aggrandizement of these kings, without any 
parliament or representation. Wander through monarch- 
ies and empires the world over, Russia and China pro- 
bably excepted, and nowhere will you find conditions that 
are as bad. The seed of democracy was planted in 1776, 
but up to the present day it has not borne any fruit. 

Our friends in the old country are beginning to see the 
conditions in America in their true light and we are the 
objects of their commiseration and of their — contempt. 

The German Social-Democratic papers devote con- 
siderable space to comments on the treatment by the 
American authorities of union miners in the Cripple 
Creek district, and although the Social-Democrats are 
the sworn enemies of the monarchy and even of the 



80 berger's broadsides 

Kaiser, the German government comes in for a certain 
amount of praise in this connection. 

In a leading article commenting on the persecution of 
the union miners, the Berlin Vorwaerts says editorially: 

"By those who were wont to consider the great republic 
on the other side of the Atlantic a haven of refuge for the 
down-trodden classes, the course of political events in Amer- 
ica is greatly regretted. 

"Daily it becomes more and more evident that the United 
States is no longer a democratic republic, but a mighty world 
power governed by an oligarchy of plutocrats. 

*'In Colorado the so-called higher classes — that is to say, 
the millionaire mine owners and their followers — are daily 
violating the laws of the state to annihilate workingmen, 
whose only crime is that they have formed unions for their 
own protection, unions which are perfectly legal under the 
existing laws of the state. 

'^Workingmen have been corralled into pens as if they 
were wild beasts, and, not having a place to banish these 
unfortunate people to, they have been deported into a neigh- 
boring state, Kansas. One wonders what the next stage of 
the military tyrant will be. 

"We Socialists in Germany have been subject to much 
oppression, and there is little doubt that the late Prince Bis- 
marck, in his palmy days, would have liked to have treated 
German workingmen in the same manner, but with hundreds 
of thousands of bayonets behind him he did not dare to 
do this. 

"Nobody will think of accusing our present German gov- 
ernment of loving the Social-Democrats or the labor unions 
over much, but it knows that should it ever try to treat 
German subjects as citizens of Colorado are being treated 
today, the flames of revolution would spread over the coun- 
try like wildfire. 

"The kaiser is at least fighting us fairly. The monarchical 
government under which we live would never think of vio- 



FREEDOM HAS FLED 81 

lating the law to crush the laboring classes, and the labor 
bureau in Berlin has even in some respects done good work 
for the workingmen, but not so in the *land of the free and 
the home of the brave.' 

**One might be tempted to say that the American laboring 
men deserve what they get, when their votes give them 
power to shake off their yoke at any time. 

"Surely, no other people would have as much patience as 
the American, but that patience has ceased to be a virtue.'' 

Our brother organ in Germany is right: Patience has 
ceased to be a virtue. But the American workmen have 
long ceased to claim any virtues. And as to the com- 
parison between the government of Germany and the 
government of the United States — of course the Kaiser 
is their mortal enemy, but he is at least a brave man; 
while our ruling money-bags are shabby and cowardly 
hucksters and their governors are corrupt "lawyers" and 
thieves whom they buy and use at pleasure. And the 
Kaiser — the great war lord of Europe — is fighting the 
Socialists and the emancipation of the working class 
fairly and in the open> He obeys the laws. There were 
two thousand Socialist votes cast in Colorado, there were 
over three million Socialist votes cast in Germany. But 
the German emperor did not suspend the constitution 
like Peabody, the corporation attorney and lick-spittle of 
the mine owners in Colorado. There is a possibility of a 
peaceful solution of the social question in Germany. 
There is none here, although no doubt the orators of this 
Fourth of July will favor us as usual with glowing 
accounts of the grandeur of the government under which 
we live. 

But we will say this: In the ancient city of hanging 
gardens, Belshazzar, indulging in high revelry, sur- 



82 berger's broadsides 

rounded by satraps, wives and concubines, was not blind 
to the writing on the wall. Struck with awe, he com- 
manded the feast to end; he sent for men of lore, to 
interpret the mystic words. In America today, mammon 
attended by slaves of form divine, is still feasting in 
gilded halls. Drunk with pleasure, dazed by the glamour 
of his environment, he sees not the writing on the wall. 
Yet there it is in flaming letters. 

Mene, mene tekel, upharsin — In America we shall soon 
have great bodies of men who are but one remove from 
the last desperate strait. They are patient, very patient — 
we see how they take the situation in Colorado— in fact, 
they are more patient than the Chinese who rose as 
"Boxers." They are about as patient as the Russians. 
But the present industrial system has massed them in the 
centres of population. Machinery, trusts and other new 
methods are constantly increasing the proportion of the 
unemployed among them. Manufacturers' associations and 
other combines are constantly at work to reduce their 
wages and to break down their organizations. The Pea- 
bodys, the Bells, the Mine Owners' Associations, the Citi- 
zens' Alliances are constantly showing them that "law 
and order" are humbugs, and that constitutions, courts, 
etc., are simply snares to oppress the non-resistants. They 
are patient, very patient, but men in great numbers 
always retain one element of brute force. Like animals 
when driven into a corner, even the patient American 
workmen will fight. With the blood of the capitalist 
class will they write a new declaration of independence 
— write the sentence that "All men are born equal," in 
bloody Red. Those who can see — see the signs ; those 
who can hear — hear the voices, by day or by night. And 



FOR WHOM IS THERE FREEDOM 83 

yet there are some who see not; there are some who 
hear not. 

Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin. — 

Thou art weighed in the balance and art found want- 
ing. Plutocracy and Democracy will part company — the 
first to become simply a horrible example in history ; the 
second to become a Social-Democracy and occupy the 
throne which progress and enlightenment have prepared. 



For Whom is There Freedom? 

Written July 29, 1905. 

ONE OF THE MOST common objections to Social- 
ism is that it would take away the freedom of the people. 
Now I will say right here that this would be a very seri- 
ous objection, and Communism at least is open to that 
objection. There may be also certain kinds of Socialism 
that would take away the people's freedom, but the So- 
cial-Democracy will never do it. 

But as to freedom and liberty, who has liberty and 
who is free under the present economic system? 

Some time ago, an employer who was on the witness 
stand gave the following definition of liberty: 

''Why, liberty is the right of an American to do as he 
d — pleases." And he added, "This is the ideal of Amer- 
ican manhood." 



84 berger's broadsides 

In one way, the man was right. Our present conditions 
have made it possible for a small class of Americans to 
do as they d — please, and that is looked upon by the 
press, the pulpit, and the schools as the ideal of American 
manhood. 

Of course, it can never be real freedom. It may be the 
liberty of the libertine — of the slave, who has just got 
free — but it never is the freedom of the free man. The 
ex-slaves of the old Romans were called libertines, and 
when set at liberty they were noted for their licentious- 
ness. They did **as they d — pleased." 

If the capitalist right to oppress others is liberty, then 
our present capitalist liberty is right. Liberty of that 
kind, of course, can be used or abused, and our economic 
conditions set a premium upon the abuse by any ex-slave 
of the system who has become free. 

But freedom as such can never be abused. Freedom is 
inborn with us, and the only trouble is, we cannot enjoy 
it, because a certain small class, the capitalist class — the 
libertines of the present economic system — are absolutely 
at liberty. And they use their liberty to oppress us. 

Freedom is closely connected with economic condi- 
tions. A man is not free who is dependent upon another 
for a job — for a chance to make a livelihood. Under the 
present economic system with its unbridled competition, 
only the successful are free. Only the successful can 
throw off the shackles of industrial slavery — and with 
this liberty they often become libertines, in every sense 
of the word. For further details, please read the columns 
of any metropolitan daily. 

But we cannot live moral lives, unless v/e are free. 
Hence, freedom is the ideal of the Social-Democrats, and 



FOR WHOM IS THERE FREEDOM 85 

we will combat and defy anything and anybody, even 
within the Socialist movement and within the labor move- 
ment, that will curtail our freedom. 

But who has freedom under the present economic sys- 
tem ? 

Take all the different classes of our people, and in all 
of them you will find the same lack of freedom — all ex- 
cept a handful of plutocrats, who have succeeded in gain- 
ing the monopoly of "liberty." All of the others, business 
men, farmers, and wage-earners, are not free. 

Let us take the business men first. Now we all know 
that competitive business is by its very nature corrupt. 
Every sincere business man will tell you that it is impos- 
sible to conduct his affairs as an upright man and be suc- 
cessful, for the simple reason that it is always the un- 
scrupulous rogue who sets the standard. It is the rascal 
who commences with adulterating goods, with using false 
advertising — ^but the honest man must follow suit. The 
same holds good for the manufacturer. It is the rascal 
who begins cutting the wages of the employes ; endanger- 
ing the lives of the workmen by neglecting to put up 
appliances for their protection, and employing the labor 
of women and children — but the honest man must strike 
the same pace. 

Another suggestive fact. About 90 per cent of all busi- 
ness men at least once in their lives go into bankruptcy. 
Still another, the mammoth store — the department store 
— is continually wiping out small merchants, and the 
large manufacturing establishments and the trusts are 
doing the same thing for the small shops. So it is pretty 
clear that the business men, the merchants, the manu- 
facturers are not free. 



86 berger's broadsides 

It IS hardly necessary to add here that the professional 
class, lawyers, doctors, teachers, preachers, are not free. 
They are of course mainly dependent upon the other 
classes, and especially upon the class with money, for a 
living. Only in rare cases can they follow their own in- 
clinations, and express their opinions without fear or 
favor. Surely, none of the men here mentioned can in 
any true sense be said to be free. 

Now let us consider the farmers. In times of old, they 
were looked upon as the "free and independent class" par 
excellence. The present high prices for the staple goods 
oi the farmers have for a moment relieved that class. 
They experience a temporary prosperity. But let us re- 
collect the crisis of the nineties and the mournful story 
of the presidential election of 1896 when the poor far- 
mers, burdened with debts and misery, like a drowning 
man clutching at the last straw, as a class voted for "free 
silver." It was lucky for the farmers more than for any- 
body else that they did not succeed at that time — but this 
present prosperity is only temporary. It is based upon 
very good crops in this country, and failure of crops 
elsewhere — and upon wars, the Spanish-American War 
first, the Boer War next, and now the Russian- Japanese 
War. All of these conditions and circumstances will, of 
course, not always prevail. And then the farmers will 
deteriorate again. They are bound to deteriorate as long 
as the present economic system lasts. The farmers are 
the serfs of the trusts, the railroads, and the speculators. 
They are not free. 

And how about the wage-workers ? Are they free ? We 
hardly need to answer. Think of the insecurity and de- 
pendence which day by day makes the workman subject 



FOR WHOM IS THERE FREEDOM 87 

to his employer's favors, and to every whim of his, first 
in order to obtain his daily subsistence, and second, in 
order to retain it. And must not a wage-worker give up 
his identity? He must identify himself with his masters 
private interests, no matter whether the master is inferior 
to him or not — nay, he must help him and obey him even 
when the master is a rogue who adulterates goods, or in 
other ways carries on a warfare against society. 

In other words, the wage system possesses this miser- 
able feature which makes it so similar to ancient slavery, 
that the workman is used entirely for his master's private 
ends. This was the definition of slavery. 

And how about those who have no work and cannot 
find any ? Are they not in a still worse predicament ? Are 
they free ? Are they not the slaves of misery, hunger and 
every other ill? Surely no workman, whether employed 
or not, can be called free. 

So to make a long story short, it is not so much the 
fact that there are rich and poor in the world under the 
present system, but the fact that the poor have to depend 
upon the rich for a living, that makes us all servants and 
slaves. It is the terrible economic power of the capitalist 
class that keeps us from becoming free. Only Socialism 

can help us. And wc shall become free only in the degree 
that we introduce Socialism and Social-Democratic meas- 
ures into our system. 



88 berger's broadsides 



Capitalist Liberty. 

Written in April, 1907. 

Mr. Frank M. Hoyt, a well-known corporation lawyer, 
recently delivered a lecture on Socialism before the Men's 
Club in this city. He evidently tried to give a fair state- 
ment of Socialism, and aside from the error that he 
considered the ''iron law of wages/' as formulated by 
Ricardo and repeated by Lassalle, a part of Socialistic 
doctrine, he succeeded pretty well. 

* * * ^ 

But he concluded : 

"The objection which is the most potent in this country 
to the acceptance of the SociaHsts' proposal that the state 
shall own or control property to the degree asked by them, 
is the feeling that such a plan would result in the tyranny 
of the state, and absolutely destroy all individual freedom. 
*'The idea is thus expressed by Judge Grosscup in a recent 
address: 

" *The deepest instinct of the American is the instinct of 
individual freedom. Beginning with himself, and those who 
depend upon him, the American will willingly surrender 
nothing to the community that he feels bound in conscience 
to perform himself; nothing to the larger community, called 
the state, that he feels should be performed by the smaller 
community of which he is proportionally a larger part; 
nothing to the nation that he feels should be performed by 
the state. 



CAPITALIST LIBERTY 89 

"*And when you ask him in the interest of this or any- 
other cause to separate himself farther and farther from in- 
dividual control of those duties that are dearest to him— the 
education of his children, their religious training, the whole 
circle of what he has always looked upon as a personal 
responsibility — you ask him to surrender a thing that rather 
than surrender he will abandon the cause." 

"Another objection, to at least the present suggestiouw** of 
the party, is found in what is claimed to be its failure to 
formulate measures, which shall operate in a practical man- 
ner against the evils of which they complain, without doing 
that which is confessedly impossible, namely: immediately 
subvert and change our entire existing system. 

"As a friend of mine humorously puts it: *The Socialists 
bring us to the banks of a deep stream, assure us there is 
excellent pasturage on the other side, and fail to supply any 
means of crossing over to it.'* 

* * * 

The trouble with our honest opponents — for there are 
also dishonest opponents, who deal in all kinds of scientific 
fibs, the hollowness of which they themselves recognize 
— lies in the fact that these honest opponents cannot, in 
their train of thought, sufficiently abstract from present 
conditions. This explains why so many people are fright- 
ened away from Social-Democracy by all kinds of catch- 
words and phrases. 

And the objection that is raised with special emphasis 
against Social-Democracy is that the Co-operative Com- 
monwealth is inconsistent with ''individual freedom." 

Now, we could make very short work of this. 

We could simply answer that the present society does 
not grant freedom to the individual. 

We could point to the fact that the great majority of 
our fellow citizens, during their lives, ^re in the service 
of others. All their lives the great majority must work 



90 berger's broadsides 

according to the wish and will of a small minority. And 
these workers and their families do not get even enough 
to eat, cannot dress themselves properly or Hve in a 
decent home upon the wages they receive. And besides, 
they are not allowed to speak and act as they feel. If 
they do so, they run the risk of losing work and liveli- 
hood. 

We could prove that even the well-to-do classes are 
not free at present. They are tied in their business life 
by competition, in their political, religious and social life 
by considerations of their position, by public opinion and 
by the pressure of the powerful. 

And this is Mr. Hoyt's case, for instance. 
^ ^ <j 

This much has already been admitted by every un- 
prejudiced observer, that our present society does not in 
reality give to its members that freedom, which the con- 
stitution promises — the Fourth of July orators notwith- 
standing. 

Herbert Spencer, who opposed Socialism because he 
feared the dangers to individual liberty, was unprejudiced 
enought to admit that if he had only the choice between 
our present capitalistic society and the Socialist system, 
he would unhesitatingly prefer the latter. And this just 
from the standpoint of the real and actual, and not of 
the imagined, freedom of the individual. 

I could further point out that every forward step of 
culture and civilization generally is connected with a cer- 
tain restriction of personal liberty. The further we ad- 
vance, the more fields are withdrawn from the discretion 
of the individual, and put under the control of the com- 
munity. Even today our entire state rests on the re- 
striction of the liberty of the individual. 



CAPITALIST LIBERTY 91 

Compulsory education and taxation — to speak of these 
foundations of our present government — are simply re- 
strictions of our personal liberty. But would Mr. Hoyt 
on that account wish to go back to the times when no 
father was compelled to send his children to school and 
when nobody knew anything of taxation ? Such regions 
still exist — in Central Asia and in Central Africa. Yet 
every one of us knows perfectly well that we civilized 
servants of the tax commissioner and of the school super- 
intendent are, in fact and truth, infinitely freer than our 
forefathers were, who roamed ''freely" in the deep forests 
of Germany and Great Britain; or than the inhabitants 
of this globe who still live in similar conditions. 

We all know perfectly well that the great problem of 
the history of mankind consists just in this: How to 
restT^ict the liberty of each individual in such manner as 
to make way for the greatest freedom for all. 

We all know perfectly well that the most unrestricted 
liberty leads to the brute battle of each against all. 

And this never meant freedom. 

It meant slavery in ancient times, and serfdom in the 
middle ages. 

In modern days we find this unrestricted liberty only 
in the economic Held. And there it has anarchy in its 
wake, which reigns supreme in our present society, with 
its chronic industrial crises (called "panics"), its perma- 
nent reserve army of the unemployed, its ever-increasing 
destitution of the masses, its business corruption and its 
ethical hypocrisy. 

All this should really be quite sufficient to prove to 
every thinking man the absurdity of the twaddle about 
the dangers of Social-Democracy to individual freedom. 



92 berger's broadsides 

For a freedom that does not exist cannot be in danger. 
And least of all can it be endangered by something that 
does not yet exist, but is going to come, as is the case 
with the Socialist Republic. 

So Judge Grosscup may rest assured that we ask 
him to surrender nothing. 

* * * 
Social-Democracy, however, need not content itself with 
this negative proof. It is fully able to furnish also the 
positive information that the Socialist Republic is not 
only entirely consistent with personal freedom, but will 
bring it to its fullest development. 

If there are still many well-meaning and educated peo- 
ple who fear the "almighty'' Socialistic state, this prob- 
ably arises from the fact that they always think of the 
Utopian schemes of the first communists who wanted to 
rule everything from above. 

But modern, scientific Socialists never dream of such 
a thing. 

Indeed, should we, in the Socialist Republic, need other 
means to keep people to their work than we need in the 
present society? Why do we work today? In order to 
live. Will this be otherwise in a society where all means 
of production belong to the commonwealth, instead of be- 
longing to a few capitalists ? Why should a laborer cease 
to work, because the entire value of his labor will go to 
the laborer? 

I cannot see any logical reason. 

It is said that man is a ''self-seeker'' by nature. That 
he works only when he himself reaps the benefit; that 
he will not work for others. 

But is it not a fact just now that the greater part of 



CAPITALIST LIBERTY 93 

mankind works for others? And is it not just in the 
Co-operative Commonwealth that everybody will be en- 
abled to call the full product of his labor his own? Where 
then will justifiable self-seeking be better satisfied, in the 
present or in the future society? 

In future society, the genius of work will be freed from 
its most fatal defect, which is inherent today — the fact 
that the chief aim of all labor is the individual interest 
of somebody else, the profit of somebody else, the making 
of surplus for somebody else. 

In the Socialist Republic this will not be possible. There 
only that will be produced which the commonwealth 
needs. And everybody will get the full product of what 
he has earned. Or, to express it better, the equivalent 
of his work. 

The material and individual interest of the working- 
man in his work, therefore, will not cease in the society 
of the future, but, on the contrary, there it will find its 
real and absolute basis. 

H^ H< He 

Thus we see, that nothing will be changed regarding 
the motive to work. At least nothing in its disfavor. 

It is also clear, on the other hand» that the freedom of 
choice of work will be much greater than at present. 

How it is today every one knows. Of course, our con- 
stitution ^^guarantees'' us, in the most solemn way, the 
most unrestricted freedom. In reality, however, it de- 
pends upon a whole series of extraordinarily fortunate 
chances and circumstances, whether any one can really 
choose his life's work at will. 

With most parents and young people, pecuniary con- 
siderations alone decide as to the choice of professions. 



94 berger's broadsides 

A single glance at the statistics on this subject show that 
the choice of a profession depends upon the prospect 
which the law of "supply and demand" offers at the 
time. Even theology, which should be above all a mat- 
ter of sentiment, is not excluded from this rule. 

And the overwhelming majority of children have no 
choice at all — they must go to the factory at the age of 
14, or even earlier. 

How different this will be in a society which guar- 
antees all labor its full product! How all foreign con- 
siderations, which today determine the choice of work, 
will fall away ! So much the more, because then the edu- 
cational institutions will be open to all competent persons. 
Not the money-bag^ but solely the ability, talent and in- 
clination will decide. There is some genius hidden in 
almost every person. And every young man and every 
young woman will have time to become clearly conscious 
of his or her inclinations and gifts. 

And should any one have been mistaken about his or 
her choice of work, how much easier will be the transition 
to another sphere of action than it is today. 

* * * 

It is not the intention of Socialists to interfere with 
municipal rights, county rights or state rights which are 
essential to the habit of self-government. The Americctn 
capitalist will lose the liberty of the libe'^tine — the liberty 
to abuse — ^but the American citizen will gain the freedom 
of the man who is free economically as zvell as politically. 

As to the education of the children, their religious 
training and so forth, that will be less interfered with 
than today. Religion is a private matter — that is So- 
cialist doctrine the world over. It is for that very reason 



CAPITALIST LIBERTY 95 

that the Roman Catholic Church bitterly opposes Social- 
ism. That church wants religion — the Romanist brand 
of it — to be a state affair. 

So much for the observations of Judge Grosscup. 



As for the remark of Mr. Hoyt that we want "to im- 
mediately subvert and change our entire existing sys- 
tem," J. will say that no true Social-Democrat ever dreams 
of a sudden change of society. We build upon the past 
historical development and take into consideration the 
present conditions. 

We are the greatest advocates of reforms of all kinds 
and every description the world has ever seen. 

Mr. Hoyt ought to know that. We are proposing these 
reform measures right here in Milwaukee before his 
very eyes, and at Madison, Wis., in the legislature. And 
we will advocate them in Washington as soon as we 
elect members to congress. 

Yet these reforms are only stepping stones — very use- 
ful and necessary stepping stones, if the Socialist Re- 
public is ever to be brought about peaceably — ^but our 
aim is to abolish the capitalist system entirely. 

The Socialist Republic will come by evolution. It can- 
not come any other way. We may see, however, the 
most fearful revolutions (and many of them) as a part 
of that great evolution. 

Bloody revolutions will not hasten — they may even re- 
tard — the coming of the Socialist Republic. And whether 
such eruptions are to take place at all, will depend as 
much upon the policy of the capitalist class as upon the 
leadership of the proletariat. 



96 berger's broadsides 

We are Social-Democrats, because we have recognized 
that the economical development of the present capitalist 
system, with its concentration of wealth, its trusts, etc., 
leads toward Socialistic production. Socialism is the 
next phase of civilization, if civilization is to survive. 

So, dear Mr. Hoyt, "we shall have to cross to the 
other bank of that deep stream." We Social-Democrats 
supply all kinds of social reform vehicles and bridges 
to cross. We reach out the helping hand of brotherly 
love. But those who refuse and fight — will perish in the 
stream. 

And that is the grim ''humor" of it. 



THE FLAG SUPERSTITION 97 



The Flag Superstition. 

Written in June^ 1907. 

An item on the first page of the Milwaukee Sentinel 
says : 

Clarence S. Darrow, the well-known Socialist lawyer of 
Chicago, created considerable comment recently when he 
refused to rise in his seat while "The Star Spangled Banner*' 
was being sung in the Silver Grill restaurant of a leading 
hotel in Spokane, Wash. Among the many who took dinner 
at the time at this restaurant was C. W. Mott, general emi- 
gration agent of the Northern Pacific road, who was in Mil- 
waukee yesterday. Mr. Mott, like all other guests of the 
hotel, and the restaurant was crowded at the time, was 
greatly incensed over the action of Mr. Darrow. 

*'Out West people dine more in restaurants than here in 
the East," said Mr. Mott yesterday, in speaking of the inci- 
dent. "Under the circumstances it was but natural that the 
Silver Grill was crowded. The orchestra had just finished a 
selection from 'Tannhaeuser* when a young woman stepped 
forward to sing *The Star Spangled Banner.' As a fitting 
prologue the orchestra struck up a medley of national airs 
that made the blood of each one of us tingle, and when the 
strains melted into *The Star Spangled Banner* every one 
arose in his seat as a mark of respect to our flag. All except 
Mr. Darrow. He was seated at a table with an associate who 
arose like the rest of us, but Mr. Darrow remained seated. 
His friend apparently pleaded with him to rise also, but he 
shook his head. 

''The incident did not pass by unnoticed. Suddenly a woman 



98 



BERGER S BROADSIDES 



began to hiss, and before the next second had passed hisses 
came from every part of the room, but Mr. Darrow paid no 
attention to it. Others called to him to rise like an Amer- 
ican, true to his country, but he remained undisturbed to the 
end amid all the excitement. 

"Mr. Darrow is considered the archangel of Socialism in 
this country. If that is their principle of love and gratitude 
toward the flag that protects them at home and abroad, it 
seems to me that the people can do no less than crush 
Socialists wherever they may appear to spread their doctrine 
of hatred and discontent. Socialism is a serpent gnawing at 
the root of the nation." 

I have not the pleasure of knowing C. W. Mott — 
although I do know that he used to live in Milwaukee 
and was considered a "good fellow/' whatever that 
means. 

But I do know Mr. Darrow. And, therefore, I believe 
I am safe in saying that Clarence Darrow has more 
brains than all those present in the Silver Grill combined 
— "Charlie" Mott thrown in to the bargain. Darrow is 
one of the best lawyers in America. 

Yet Clarence Darrow is no "archangel of the Social- 
ists." In fact, he is neither an angel nor a Socialist. 
He is the man who wrote the famous booklet "Resist 
Not Evil." He is a "philosophic anarchist" and so 
considered by everybody, including himself. 

Clarence Darrow is not now. and never was, a mem- 
ber of the Socialist Party. 

But what he did at the Silver Grill is surely not to his 
discredit. And I believe I might have done the same 
myself — coming as he did from the trial of W. D. Hay- 
wood and seeing what "patriotism" means in Colorado 
and Idaho. 



THE FLAG SUPERSTITIOISl 99 

And what is patriotism at the present time? Today, 
if ever, patriotism may be considered the ''last refuge of 
the scoundrel." 

John D. Rockefeller is a patriot. August Belmont is 
a patriot, Tom Ryan of New York is a patriot, Sherman 
Bell and ex-Governor Peabody are patriots, Richard 
Croker was a patriot until he expatriated himself. 

The ''yellow dog fund'' was a patriot fund, and so is 
the Republican campaign fund. Every big thief, every 
great exploiter, every huge leech sucking the life blood 
of the people is a patriot. He will tell you so himself. 

And he is protected by the flag, by the star-spangled 
banner. He is protected not only in life and limb, but 
also in his stolen possessions. 

■^ ^ -^ 

But the common workingman, the proletarian, is not 
protected. He does not have anything, so he does not 
need any protection. He owns nothing of the country, 
not even enough of it to build a house on for himself 
and family. \ 

"This flag" cannot protect the home of a man who 
owns no home. 

And as for his life and limbs — the owner of the fac- 
tory "insures" himself against any accidents that might 
befall the man. The man has to fight it out in the 
courts. 

And the flag has nothing to do with it. 

And the worker never goes abroad except as a sailor, 
a stoker or fireman, or a stowaway. 

So I cannot see where the principle of love or grati- 
tude of workingmen toward "the flag that protects them 
here and abroad" should come in. 



luO berger's broadsides 

Yet I will say that the proletarians in general are 
patriots in the highest sense. 

They not only build the cities, railways and work- 
shops, but they also protect them against fire and flood. 
And it is the working class that furnishes the soldiers, 
or at least the overwhelming majority of them. It is 
the working class that has to do the fighting, although 
they have nothing to do with the declaration of war. 

If the railroad managers and the bankers and the capi- 
talists should have to do their own fighting, a war would 
not last long. 

And it is no more than right that the workingmen as a 
whole should love their country as a whole. They will 
inherit it as soon as they make use of their brains for 
themselves. They have created these cities with their 
magnificent palaces, museums, libraries, art institutions, 
schools, etc., and by right these belong to them, and not 
to the capitalists. 

This brilliant culture of our country — art, education 
and literature — is by right an inheritance of the white 
race. 

And a nation that will own its country again will be a 

nation that will have a real reason to become patriotic 

again. And I hope that America will be among the 

first. 

* * * 

The flag fetich is silly when it is not hypocritical. And 
it is hyppcritical when it is not silly. 

It is a remnant of feudal barbarism, when it repre- 
sented the feudal allegiance of the vassal to the "coat of 
arms" of his lord — usually emblematic of some carnivor- 
ous beast or some bird of prey. 



THE FLAG SUPERSTITION ^ 101 

I despise every fetich. The green flag of the prophet 
Mohamet, or of Ireland, is as dear to me as the red flag ^ 
of the Socialists or the star-spangled banner. A flag is 
a piece of dry goods that one can buy for 75 cents in any 
department store. 

It is the idea that is behind it that is to decide whether 
the flag is worth following or not. 

And just now the stars and stripes cover all sorts of 
oppression, misery, prostitution, graft and exploitation 
of women and children, not to mention the exploitation 
of millions of men. 

This flag is now the coat of arms of the meat trust 
and the oil trust and every other trust. It is the banner 
of E. H. Harriman, Tom Ryan, August Belmont, Chaun- 
cey Depew and Tom Piatt of New York. 

^i ^ ^ 

And as for the silly custom of getting up whenever 
the "Star Spangled Banner" is played — that was 
imported from the old country. There the oflScers and 
their women — legal or illegal — stand up in the cafe or in 
the German ''Wirthshaus" whenever '*God Save the 
King" or "Heil Dir im Siegerkranz" is played. 

Ten, twenty or thirty years ago, before our plutocrats 
and our middle class traveled so much in Europe this 
custom was not practiced in our country. 

It is a shoddy imitation of a feudal custom — just like 
the "coats of arms" on the carriages of our millionaires. 

I personally would just as soon get up when the band 
plays "Hiawatha" or "Hail, Hail, the Gang is All Here" 
as for the Star Spangled Banner. "Hiawatha" stands 
for a good time, the Star Spangled Banner stood for hell 



102 berger's broadsides 

in Colorado and stands for the same thing in Pennsyl- 
vania and other places. 

If they want the workingmen to sing ''The Star-Span- 
gled Banner, long may it wave," — then this must 
become again ''the home of the free and the brave." 

Tear the flag away from Simon Guggenheim of 
Colorado, who has openly bought his seat in the Senate, 
and return it to the people. And the people will love it 
again. 

There is a very serious aspect to all this. 

The question is, what are we coming to? Here is the 
"general emigration agent" of a thievish road — the tool 
of a Harriman or a Jim Hill — having the criminal inso- 
lence to tell people that "Socialism is a serpent gnawing 
at the root of the nation." Whereas, as a matter of fact, 
the only persons who gave the sign of the snake were 
the "ladies and gentlemen" (including Mr. Mott) who 
hissed Clarence Darrow. 

Quo vadis — plain American citizen? 

5{S * Jjf 

While the people of the United States have a quasi- 
republican form of government, the tendency — not only 
in capitalist circles but also in the well-to-do middle class 
—is decidedly anti-republican. 

While we are supposed to have a democracy, we are 
hampered by having an uncrowned king and a senatorial 
oligarchy — and the well-to-do middle class applauds both. 

While we have no established church to support, 
church property is not taxed, and so we are made to 
support all the churches, whether we want to do so or 
not. 



THE FLAG SUPERSTITION 103 

AVhile we have no hereditary nobility, we have a mon- 
eyed aristocracy which has now become hereditary. And 
it is the most oppressive and contemptible the world has 
ever seen. 

And while we have the general franchise in this coun- 
try — we have at the same time the most stupendous polit- 
ical frauds. Six million black men are now disfran- 
chised, and very soon an attempt will be made to dis- 
franchise the poor whites. 

^ ^ ^ 

In short, unless the people will rise in all their might 
and shake off about 500,000 human lice, which infest our 
economic and political body, then this country is lost. 

And the Star-Spangled Banner, within a few genera- 
tions, will have about the same meaning as the Green 
Dragon of the Chinese Empire. 



104 berger's broadsides 



Why the Panic Came. 

Written in December, 1907. 

Some big trust companies and some banks have failed 
in New York, and Wall Street was paralyzed for a day 
or two. Interest went up to 100 per cent on "short calls." 
Stocks went to the bottom. It looked for a while as if an 
industrial crisis — a so-called *'panic" — was coming. 

Of course, some of our trust magnates most interested 
in the industrial stock, which shrank the most, by force 
of necessity threw themselves into the gap. J. Pierpont 
Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, and the rest of the big 
gentlemen, put in about $100,000,000, loaned them to the 
"brokers at 6 per cent on short calls. Our government, 
through Secretary of the Treasury Cortelyou, put in also 
$25,000,000. Thus the situation was saved once more. 

But for how long? No one knows. 

* * * 

True, all capitalist papers are shrieking at the top of 
their voices, "Everything is all right. Everything is se- 
cure. No one need to fear, etc.'* 

They want to restore "confidence." 

And since capitalism is very largely a confidence game, 

this may have some efifect. 

* * * 

And whether an industrial crisis is now due or not I do 
not know. In the past, crises used to come in cycles of 



WHY THE PANIC CAME 105 

about twenty years ever since the capitalist system 
reached its full development. Thus we had crises in this 
country in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, and in 1893. Accord- 
ing to cycles a crisis would be due about in 1913. But 
there are so many causes and conditions acting on this, 
that it is impossible to foretell the year exactly. 

Besides, we have entered into an entirely new phase of 
capitalism through the development of the trusts. It is 
less possible than ever to predict when the industrial 
crisis will set in, or what its character will be. 



For there are several causes for an industrial crisis. 

One is the old and rather stereotyped explanation 
which originated with Proudhon. 

Under the capitalist system — the wage system — which 
is based upon the employer making a profit out of the 
work of the employes — the employer cannot pay the 
working man the full value of his product. 

The employer must make a profit if his business or his 
factory is to continue. 

Thus the workingmen of the country, not getting back 
in wages the full value of the production of that country, 
cannot buy back the production of that country. The 
capitalist class, that is the employing class, is too small 
in number to use up the difference, because, with the 
aid of machinery, production has greatly increased. 

* * * 
This surplus has to look for foreign markets. 
But conditions are the same in every civilized country ; 
all nations look for foreign markets. 
Everywhere we find that the producing class of the 



106 berger's broadsides 

country cannot buy back the production of the country 
with the money it gets for that production. 

Therefore the competition for the world market is very 
keen, and when there is any trouble about it, and the 
''foreign market" gets clogged up, we have our industrial 
crises. 

In other words : We have a forced under-consumption 
of the workers. And this forced under-consumption of 
the workers brings about an artificial over-production. 

Factories, workshops and mines close because we have 
too much, although there are still millions of people who 
never had enough. People go ragged because there are 
too many clothes in the country ; others starve because 
there is more wheat than can be sold. 

Hf 5k * 

To the orthodox Socialist this is the only reason for 
the crisis — although Marx wrote both for and against 
this theory. Yet there are many other causes just as im- 
portant. 

Of course, the planless production of the capitalist 
system, by which every employer and manufacturer pro- 
duces at random without knowing how much is really 
needed to cover the demand — thus creating a surplus of 
articles and an overproduction in that branch — has been 
largely eliminated through the trusts. 

The trusts know exactly how much the market needs 
in their respective branches of industry. 

By controlling that branch they are in a position to 
tell. And in that respect, the trusts have been beneficial. 
The competitive system is being modified and partly 
transformed by the trusts. 



WHY THE PANIC CAME 107 

The only trouble is that the benefits of this economy 
have gone only to a handful of men, instead of going to 
the people. 

And the trust owners, by withdrawing tremendous 
sums from industrial life — the profits of the Standard Oil 
magnates alone amounted to $900,000,000 — not all of 
which is re-invested, on the other hand hasten crises. 

And so do the high prices of all the commodities con- 
trolled by the trusts. 

* * * 

And there is also another element inherent in the cap- 
italist system, which is apt to make trouble. I mean 
the speculation in stocks of the industrial undertakings. 
And also in wheat and the necessities of life. 

This speculation with our life's necessities is in the 
nature of gambling, and has very little to do with actual 
values. Still it is very apt to influence our commercial 
and industrial life at times. And speculation also gives 
rise to all sorts of swindling undertakings and fictitious 
values. 

Yet as long as capitalism lasts, speculation is abso- 
lutely necessary and unavoidable in order to protect the 
system from stagnation. 

:js :|j jjt 

So this is another evil that is inherent in this system. 

It cannot be avoided any more than malaria in a swampy 
country. And the speculators are the mosquitos. 

We should have to drain the swamp — change the cap- 
italist system — if we want to get rid of those mos- 
quitos. 

Teddy Roosevelt, by starting a little fire here and 
there -to drive them out, is simply disturbing them. He 



108 berger's broadsides 

is causing them to swarm, which makes it so much more 
intolerable for us poor, innocent inhabitants of this big 
capitalist swamp. 



Yet there is one more great cause of industrial crises 
which must be taken into consideration, although for- 
merly some Socialists used to overlook it. That is tlje 
money question. 

The standard of values under the capitalist system is 
gold. 

Gold IS capital per se under capitalism. And all other 
goods, commodities and wares are measured by gold. 

Very nonsensical, of course, because there is not gold 
enough in the world to pay for one-fiftieth part of the 
real value of production and distribution. Yet the cap- 
italist philosophers claim that this is not necessary, since 
gold is only the standard — not the actual measure. 

That may be so. But the curse of the capitalist system 
is that in a "panic" only money — ^cash money — is the 
''summiini bonum'' — the sum of all good in the world. In 
that pinch all other values do not seem to amount to any- 
thing when compared with cash money 

Hi ^ Hi 

But every epoch has its own money, its standard of 
value. 

Originally everything was barter. They would ex- 
change a coat for so many sheep, or a bow and arrow 
for so many fish. 

Afterwards cattle was the standard of value m n^^t- 
countries, especially in Italy, where the Latin word 
"pecunia," money, comes from "pecus," cattle. 



WHY THE PANIC CAME 109 

Later on metal, which could be handled more easily 
and did not have to be fed, and did not spoil readily^ 
was made the standard of value, particularly bronze, cop- 
per and silver, although iron money was used in Greece 
and China at some time. 

By the way, copper and silver were first used in the 
lump and by weight. Thus a shekel of silver in the Bible 
denotes a certain weight of silver. And in England they 
still speak of a pound sterling, while in France all money 
is still called **argent'' from "argent," silver. 

By the discovery of America, and the great silver 
mines of South America, silver was cheapened and there- 
fore unsettled in value. Gold became one of the stand- 
ards and finally the sole standard. 

A double standard of silver and gold, as Bryan wants 
it, was found to be impracticable. It is nonsensical and 
unjust in finance, just as a double standard is unjust and 
nonsensical in morals. 

A double standard would continually disturb the equi- 
librium and therefore disturb business under the capi- 
talist system. It would bring about continual changes 
in the value of the money and thereby commercial dis- 
ease. 

And the poor fellows who would be innocent of the 
whole business — that is the workingmen — would suffer 
the most. 



Yet there can be no question that gold is an insuMcient 
standard of value, even for the capitalist system, as cap- 
italism develops further. 

The capitalist theorists and magicians try to help them- 
selves and defend this standard by declaring that it is 



110 berger's broadsides 

only an ideal standard — whatever that means — and that 
most of the business is done with checks, that is, with 
paper. 

This last, is true, of course. But it only gives an ad- 
ditional proof of the insufficiency of gold. 

As a matter of fact, *'the gold standard is a Chinese 
wall of the capitalists' own creation/' as Karl Marx says. 
And capitalism bumps its head against that wall every 
little while. 

And it usually does so in the midst of its greatest pros- 
perity. And the reason is simple enough: because that 
is the very time that this gold cover gets too short for 
the capitalist bed. 

All kinds of artificial remedies have been proposed. 

The most stupid was the i6 to i proposition, the great 
Populist panacea of a double standard. 

The most simple and naive was the proposition of the 
Greenbackers, who would make artificial money by keep- 
ing the printing presses busy turning out greenbacks 
until — well, everybody had money enough. 

Simple, indeed. The good Greenbackers forgot only 
one little thing — that the production of the country, 
the factories, railroads, mines, etc., are owned by indi- 
viduals who would not part with their property and goods 
unless they got for them something which they consid- 
ered valuable. Not for something of which everybody 
else would have plenty. 

* * 5k 

In other words, as long as the capitalist class controls 
all the good things of this world, they would not give 
them away for greenbacks of that kind, unless they could 



WHY THE PANIC CAME 111 

be compelled to do so. But the government has no way 
of compelling them to part with their goods. That has 
been tried and failed in several countries — even the ter- 
rorists of 1793 and 1794 failed with their ''greenbacks." 
In order to make money of that kind valuable, the gov- 
ernment, that is, the people collectively, would have to 
own the production and distribution. Then the govern- 
ment could issue money for it and exchange its own 
products. 

The Greenbackers put the cart before the horse. 



Yet what the banks are doing just now all over the 
country, is very little better than what the Greenbackers 
proposed. During the scare of the present stringency, 
in all of the large cities the bankers got together and 
paid no money, but simply issued clearing house certi- 
ficates. They also take advantage of the legal provision 
that they have to be given notice in advance when de- 
posits are to be taken out. 

Now, paying clearing house certificates instead of 
money means credit money with a vengeance. It is credit 
money on the credit of the banks, not even backed by the 
government. 

Of course, as long as people have confidence in the 
clearing house certificates they are all right, but in case 
of a real industrial crisis, a so-called general panic, these 
clearing house certificates would not be worth very much. 



Besides, there is another danger. The banks are tight- 
ening the money stringency which has already compelled 
manufacturers to lay off many thousand men. 



112 . berger's broadsides 

Our banks are, furthermore, disturbing the export busi- 
ness by not giving credit and "keeping the money in 
their respective towns/' And thus they may bring on a 
crisis for one of the other reasons mentioned above — that 
is by interfering with getting rid of our surplus produc- 
tion in the foreign markets. 

* * * 

A much better plan to relieve the money stringency 
would be the following, which, by the way, did not orig- 
inate with me: 

Let the government issue money on bonds, to states, 
counties and cities for public improvements — for roads, 
street lines, sewerage, school house and public buildings, 
and payable without interest, let us say, in twenty yearly 
installments of 5 per cent. The returned money to be 
canceled and destroyed as soon as paid back. And such 
public improvements to be carried out under the eight- 
hour day and at the highest current union wages. 

Now, this would give employment to hundreds of 
thousands, even millions, very soon. It would, for a long 
time to come, absorb the "reserve army," and money 
would get in circulation. 

Besides, this kind of money would be absolutely safe, 
because it would be backed up, not only by these im- 
provements, but also by the local taxation of the states 
or communities. 

Furthermore, since the money paid back would be 
destroyed when paid back, it would not become "a drug 
on the market" and would not destroy the equilibrium. 

In short, it would be as "elastic" a currency as could 

be invented under the capitalist system. 

* * * 

But, of course, all bankers and the speculators will bit- 



WHY THE PANIC CAME 113 

terly oppose this kind of a money issue. They will op- 
pose it although the national banks get government 
money of that type without so good a security. And 
although the government is assisting not only the bank- 
ers, but also the brokers on Wall Street every time they 
are in trouble. 

And there is also this difference : The national banks 
can put up government bonds as security when they issue 
money, and then get interest tzmce. Once on the $90,000 
banknotes the government issues on the $100,000 bonds, 
and the second time on the interest of the $100,000 bonds 
the bankers have deposited as security. 

But since the above mentioned plan would make it 
possible for cities to bring about tremendous and unheard 
of improvements, without having to borrow money from 
the capitalist class, the capitalist class, as a whole, will 
also fight this plan. 

And yet it is the only way to relieve the situation un- 
der capitalism. 

So, to make a long story short, I cannot see very much 
help under the capitalist system. The great antagonism 
between the social form of production and the individual 
form of appropriation will continue to break loose in 
feverish industrial crises. 

And while I do not want to create any scare among 
our readers and friends — and while X have been asked 
by several of them what they are to do with a few pen- 
nies they have saved for a rainy day — I will say this : 
That I would not guarantee any bank, not the best of 
them, in case of a panic. 

A bank has to lend out its money in order to do busi- 



114 berger's broadsides 

ness, and naturally in case of a crisis, is subject to the 

conditions of the market, and the industrial conditions. 

^ ^ >ji 

But I would advise any workingman who has saved 
a little and can afford it, to buy a little house near the 
city with an acre or two around it. He will then at least 
always have a roof over his head. He can always raise 
his own vegetables, keep a goodly number of chickens, 
and have his savings invested more safely than in any 
bank. Modern conditions and transportation facilities 
are making this possible for the average city worker who 
has laid up a little money. 

This plan, however, has some disadvantages, especially 
in small towns containing only one industry. In case 
of an industrial crisis, or lack of work, the man is tied to 
the place. Yet a man with a family is more or less tied 
down in any case. Besides, in time of a crisis, the con- 
ditions are not apt to be better in any other place, and 
the advantages of my suggestion surely outweigh the 
disadvantages. 

* * * 

The chief trouble is only that so very few workingmen 
have any savings to invest. 



WILL YOU MEND YOUR ROOF 115 



Will You Mend Your Roof? 

Written in July, 1908. 

The Declaration of Independence is a document that is 
supposed to contain the cardinal principles of the Ameri- 
can republic and the American mode of government. 

* * ^ 

The famous declaration starts with the following gem 
of thought : **A11 men are created equal" and are endowed 
''with certain inalienable rights ; among these are life, 
liberty and the pursuit of happiness." 

A fine phrase, indeed! 

'*A11 men are created equal." This may be true with 
some qualifications. But do they live equal? Do they 
die equal? 

The child of the poor is born in a hovel, surrounded 
by misery and poverty from his first moments. There 
are three chances to one that he will not survive the first 
year. And, even if he pulls through, there is a life of 
misery before him. The dangers of sickness are tenfold 
as great; the temptations to crime and prostitution a 
thousand times as great for the children of the poor as 
for the children of the rich. If he safely passes all these 
perils, his is a monotonous and laborious life, ended by an 
early death, which is often to be considered a boon, since 
it saves the victim from the poorhouse. Usually the poor 



116 BERGER's BROx\DSIDES 

man has very little claim on heaven, rarely having be- 
longed to any church, and knowing little or nothing about 
religion, which is, more or less, a costly article. So it is 
hell for him even hereafter — so says the priest. 

* SN 5{i 

**A11 men are created equal." 

How about the child of the rich? Surrounded by all 
the comforts and protections which paternal love and 
money can furnish, he grows up in comfort and security 
and receives an excellent education. His life is a round 
of pleasure mingled perhaps with as much work as is 
necessary to health. Unless early killed by excessive lux- 
ury or riotous living, he can live to a ripe old age, hon- 
ored and loved by every one as a pillar of society and of 
religion. He usually gives liberally to charities and the 
churches. So when he dies he has even a very good 
claim to a reserved seat in the front row where the four- 
winged angels chant. 

^ ^j ^ 

^*A11 men are created equal !'' 

It is a phrase which did well enough in its time, but 
which now has become a lie. 

The reason? The struggle for existence has entirely 
changed since the days of Jefferson and Paine. All that 
was needed in those days was to give every individual 
a chance to fight it out for himself. This great country 
was undeveloped, and there were thousands of chances 
for everybody to make a decent and honorable living. 
Up to i860 THERE WERE ONLY TWO MILLION- 
AIRES IN THIS COUNTRY. In those days there was 
some sense in the phrase "All men are created equal." 

But since the development of the capitalist system, with 
machinery and railroads, we have a few billionaires, a 



WILL YOU MEND YOUR ROOF 117 

number of millionaires, and a multitude of wage-workers 
and tramps. What has become of the ''equality?'' 

5jJ ^ ^ 

True, it is also said that we are ''all equal before the 
law,'' and that the framers of the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence had that in mind when they wrote the phrase. 

But are we equal before the law? 

There are thousands of laws passed by the legislatures 
of the various states every session, not to speak of Con- 
gress. There is a flood of laws. 

How many of all these laws are for the purpose of pro- 
tecting the poor, the weak and the helpless? 

Most of them are simply enacted for the protection of 
*'life and property." That is, protection of the property 
of those who have it. And protection of the life of those 
whose lives are worth something in a capitalistic sense. 

There is no protection for those who have no property 
whatever. The life of the miner who goes down into 
the bowels of the earth, several hundred feet deep, for 
less than a dollar a day, receives scanty protection, or 
none. 

^ Hi j{j 

Equality before the law is a phrase like so many others. 
Two men with equally big pocketbooks are equal before 
the law^ — otherwise they are not equal. 

It cost over a million dollars to send a degenerate and 
deliberate murderer like Harry Thaw to an insane asy- 
lum. None of the big insurance grafters in New York 
were convicted. The big grafters in the stupendous capi- 
tol graft in Harrisburg went free. We find the same 
condition everywhere. In Milwaukee, after tremendous 
pressure brought by the Social-Democrats, a graft in- 
vestigation took place. An energetic district attorney 



118 berger's broadsides 

brought about quite a number of indictments against the 
smaller grafters, but how many of them were brought to 
justice? Some of the most glaring evil-doers went scot 
free. Besides, the biggest grafters were never "touched" 
and were even elected to office again. 
jj« ^ iji 

And this is the case all over. 

A United States senator openly boasted in that august 
body that no man with ten million dollars ever went to 
prison. On the other hand, a poor workingman, stealing 
a few bones in a packing house of Chicago, gets eighteen 
months' imprisonment. 

In small things, as in big affairs, we have a class gov- 
ernment. This shows plainly in the fact that for mis- 
demeanors the culprits have to pay fines in money, which 
is simply a joke for the rich man, while it hits the poor 
man terribly hard. 

Suppose an automobile runs down the avenue at a 
fearful speed, thereby endangering the lives and limbs 
of hundreds of men, women and children. If the owner 
is caught he will pay a fine of ten dollars or twenty dol- 
lars. He treats it as great fun and laughs over it with 
his friends. 

^ ^ 5jJ 

But let us take another case. 

Suppose a poor tramp — a workingman who has be- 
come discouraged during the present panic — is found 
sleeping on a bench in a park, or on a wagon in an alley. 
The eye of the law will soon find him, and he will be 
hauled up before a judge the next morning. 

"Why did you sleep in that alley, or on that bench in 



WILL YOU MEND YOUR ROOF 119 

the park?" the judge will ask sternly. "Why did you 
not go to a hotel or a rooming house?" 

"I had no money, your honor," answers the hobo. 

"What, no money to pay for a room ! And sleeping in 
an alley — that is clearly disorderly behavior. It means 
ten dollars fine and the costs," says the judge. 

"But, your honor, if I had the ten dollars and the costs 
I would not have been sleeping in the alley," murmurs 
the tramp. 

"That is just it — ^you will go to the house of correction 
for thirty days — and if you say another word I will make 
it ninety days for vagrancy. For you have no visible 
means of support. You are a criminal in the eyes of 
the law." 

And to the house of correction he goes. 

This is equality before the law! 

Under the protection of the laws the steel trust, the 
sugar trust, the meat trust, the oil trust and many other 
trusts rob the people of many millions every year. Un- 
der the protection of the laws women and children are 
exploited and their life-blood coined into dollars for the 
capitalist class. 

2k 5|S ♦ 

Truly, the people learn slowly in this country. Phrases 
work wonders. It seems as though the masses were only 
born for the purpose of creating wealth enough for our 
sugar kings, railway kings and pork kings, to buy Euro- 
pean princes for their daughters. 

Sifting things to the bottom, the laboring class is even 
worse oflf in America than in Europe. Here capitalism 
has full sway, while in Europe the capitalist class must 



120 berger's broadsides 

reckon not only with the laboring class, but also with 
the remnants of feudalism and with the monarchy. 

* * * 

Last year about this time we lived in the "era of pros- 
perity," and most of our workingmen had work and 
enough to eat. Today there are hundreds of thousands 
entirely out of work and starving, while millions work 
only part of the time. The average workingman is like 
the Irishman whose roof leaked, and who on rainy days 
always made up his mind to mend it. But when the 
weather cleared, and his wife asked him, ''Pat, why don't 
you fix the roof?" he answered, ''We are dry now. Why 
should I fix the roof?" 

* * * 

Now, this IS the rainy day. Your roof is leaking. My 
workingman friend, will you mend the roof? 



PENSIONS FOR SOLDIERS OF THE COMMON WEAL 121 



Pensions for Soldiers of the 
Common Weal. 

Written in August, 1908. 

"The Social-Democratic proposition that at the age of 
60 years every man shall be entitled to a pension, provided 
he never received an income beyond a specified amount per 
year does not arouse the chorus of universal approbation 
which was probably anticipated by its author. Probably its 
author was a benevolent visionary, eager that his fellow 
men should have the prospect of ease and luxury, and never 
considering very closely the practical question of who would 
foot the bills. 

''There is more than one point of view from which this 
civil pension proposition seems vicious. A fundamental ob- 
jection to it is that it would tend to paralyze industry and 
enterprise. A man with his hope fixed on a pension not to 
be paid if he raised himself into the ranks of the moderately 
prosperous would hardly feel like combating indolence too 
hard, for fear of injuring his prospects. There are too many 
lazy people in the world now. This would make more. 

"Why is it that there should be a proposition to pension 
elderly men, and none to pension elderly women? Many a 
woman who has worked hard all her life, either for relatives 
or for employers paying her wages pitifully small compared 
with what the same quality and quantity of service would 
command from a man, finds herself in advanced age without 
the means of independent support. Would not society do 
better to pension women for working than to pension men 
for holding back and not working as hard as they might? 



122 berger's broadsides 

''After all, however, a fundamental question Is, how would 
the great sums required for old-age pensions be raised? Of 
course, they would have to be raised by taxation, and by 
reason of grinding taxation, some people possessed of little 
property would find themselves unable to hold it. A system 
which would encourage indolence and make paupers by over- 
burdening small property owners is surely not to be wel- 
comed with open arms by American workingmen." — Evening 
Wisconsin (Milwaukee), July 20. 

Well, I happen to be the ''benevolent visionary eager 
that his fellov^ men should have the prospect of ease and 
luxury'' — if an increase of $12 a month will put any 
man into ''ease and luxury" — and I am sure the editor of 
the Evening Wisconsin vi^ould require a little more than 
$12 a month in order to live in ease and luxury. 

Our friend of the Evening Wisconsin is also mistaken 
v^hen he thinks that our plan does not include women. 

Our plank reads as follows: 

''To enact a law granting every wage- worker over 60 
years of age, who has earned less than $1,000 a year 
and has been a citizen of the United States for sixteen 
years, a pension of not less than $12 a month for the 
rest of his or her life." 

The term wage-worker means a woman as well as a 
man. It denotes any person working for wages, whether 
a clerk, stenographer, hired girl or washerwoman, or a 
railroad engineer, typesetter or bookkeeper. We agree 
with the Evening Wisconsin absolutely on the woman 
question, or rather we disagree with him absolutely, be- 
cause the Evening Wisconsin does not want to pension 
the women either. 

The fundamental question as to "who is to foot the 
bills?" is a question which is easily answered. Why, of 



PENSIONS FOR SOLDIERS OF THE COMMON WEAL 123 

course, the workmen will foot the bill. They are raising 
so many thousand millions every year for the capitalists, 
for the officials, for the army and navy and for in- 
numerable other things. They ought to be able to get 
back at least a little share of all that for themselves as an 
old-age pension. 

Under our plan there will be not quite a million men 
and women receiving a pension of $144 a year. That 
would amount to about $144,000,000 a year — a mere 
bagatelle for Uncle Sam, who was spending $101,671,881 
for the army in 1907, and $97,606,595 for the navy, not 
figuring the new battleships. 

Besides, the United States pays a pension to 967,371 
persons now, to the veterans of the Civil War and their 
dependents. In 1907 it was $138,030,894.22. There are 
still 558 pensioners of the war of 1812, and even three 
daughters of the Revolution of 1776. 

Other countries have been paying old-age pensions to 
the workingmen for a long time. Germany enacted a 
sick benefit law in 1883, and an old-age pension law in 
1889. A pension is drawn after five years of payment 
by all when they reach 70 years, and at any age if dis- 
abled from earning one-third of their previous wages. 

The dues for these insurances are paid partly by the 
insured (man or woman) wage- worker, partly by the 
employer and partly by the state. The employer is held 
!iesponsible for the payment. By law he must pay one- 
half and often agrees to pay all without deduction from 
wages. For accident insurance he must pay all of it 
any way, under the law. Dues are paid in stamps sold 
at postoffices and pasted on each worker's pass book. 
By the three kinds of insurances — sick benefit, accident 



BERGER S BROADSIDES 

and old-age pension — every wage-worker in the country 
earning not over $467 a year is insured — a total of over 
14,000,000 persons. 

Austria established compulsory insurance for sick- 
ness and accident in 1888, and in 1898 a plan for old- 
age pensions. France has had compulsory accident in- 
surance for miners since 1894, dues being paid one-half 
by the employers and one-half by employes. The gov- 
ernment is now working on a bill to give an old-age 
pension to every working man and working woman in 
France. A bill of the same type is now pending in the 
English parliament and on the very day when the article 
of the Evening Wisconsin was written the bill passed 
the House of Lords with a majority of 123 to 16 — be- 
cause both of the old English parties had agreed to it — 
both admitting that they were afraid of the English 
Socialists who had made such terrific gains at the last 
general election. 

And if we elected some Social-Democrats to Congress 
in this country, you would see how quickly the old par- 
ties would try to get things for us ! 

He He * 

Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway are all 
now considering various forms of compulsory accident 
insurance and old-age pensions. 

New Zealand, since 1899, has paid $87.50 to every per- 
son, man or woman, past 65 years of age, who has kept 
sober for the preceding five years, and who has lived 
twenty-five years in the colony, and whose income from 
other sources is less than $260. New South Wales 
started a similar pension fund in 1900, paying $2.43 per 



PENSIONS FOR SOLDIERS OF THE COMMON WEAL 125 

week to every person over 65. Why not also in Amer- 
ica? 

Marcus A. Hanna, the brightest statesman of the capi- 
talist class forced an old-age pension plank into the Re- 
publican national platform of 1900. But the plank was 
quietly dropped by the blockheads who succeeded Mark 
Hanna in the leadership of the Republican party. They 
much prefer to make deals with Tammany and the Demo- 
crats of the Bryan type — to the enactment of any meas- 
ures which may mean something in the end. 
^ ^ ^ 

It is ridiculous to claim that such a system would en- 
courage indolence and make paupers of the workers. 
The average wage of the American workmen is l^ss than 
$450 a year — his earning ability begins to decline with 
the age of 45 — some railroads set even a lower limit — 
and, as a rule, the capacity for earning a livelihood 
ceases at the age of 60. 

How is a man, especially if he, has a large family — 
and workingmen usually serve their country also by 
bringing up a family— to save a competence for his old 
age out of an average wage of $450 per annum? It is 
the present capitalist system that is making paupers. 

Besides, we have to take care of our old disabled 
workmen any way — either through charity or the poor- 
house, both of which are degrading and costly — or by 
means of an honorable pension, which is the cheapest 
method in the end. 

Furthermore, the life-work of the wage-earner in the 
factory, mine, railroad, steamship, etc., is far more dan- 
gerous than that of a soldier — and is infinitely more use- 
ful. There are more men killed and disabled in the 



berger's broadsides 126 

mines and factories and the railroads every year than 
were killed and disabled during any year of the Civil 
War. (During the last fiscal year 122,855 were maimed 
and 11,839 killed on the railroads alone.) Therefore, 
even from the standpoint of risk, the soldier of the com- 
mon weal, who works and dies for the country — the 
workman — ought to be entitled to a pension fully as 
much as the soldier of the common woe, who lives and 
bums for his country. 



A Socialist's View of the Single Tax. 

Written March 28, 1903. 

THERE HAS BEEN a strong disposition among some 
Socialist critics to regard Henry George as nothing more 
than a charlatan, while others think that a passing sneer 
will dispose of the theory of Single Tax. Both of these 
views I deem wholly wrong. Henry George in his 
''Progress and Poverty" has given us a most brilliant 
criticism of the present system — more brilliant in some 
respects than that of Karl Marx. And the idea of Single 
Tax has taken considerable root in some Australian col- 
onies, especially in New Zealand. 

Marxism naturally must oppose the Single Tax theory 
because the latter is a reform of the present system ac- 
cording to a scientific plan invented by a certain man, 
while Socialists know that human society is an organism ; 
it is a matter of growth and of evolution. The Socialists 



A socialist's view of the single tax 127 

simply point to history — to the economic development, 
the centralization of property, the trusts, etc. — and then 
merely state the fact that we are growing into Socialism, 
that Socialism is going to be the next phase of our civili- 
zation. 

But before all things Socialists contend that Single 
Tax would not change anything in favor of the property- 
less masses — that as a matter of fact, it would infinitely 
sharpen competition and sharpen it in favor of the man 
with ready money. From this point of view Single Tax 
has been declared by Socialist authors **an attempt to 
exploit Socialist ideas in favor of the mobile capital.'' 

Let us have a short and concise statement of the two 
schools of thought. 

Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of 
production and distribution. It is based solely upon the 
present mode of production on a large scale — production 
with the help of machinery. Formerly hand labor and 
individual efiforts produced the necessities of mankind. 
Today machine labor and social or associated labor are 
the means of producing these necessities. The present 
system of social production by individual ownership has 
produced two classes — the propertyless class and the 
capitalist class. A class of toilers who produce all wealth 
and have none and a class of idlers or superfluous rulers 
who get it all. Socialism holds that the structure of our 
social institutions is always determined by the way we 
get our living. And while in that former time it was 
the imperative duty of the government to protect the in- 
dividual in the possession of the property he had pro- 
duced ; so, today, it is equally the duty of the government 
to protect associated labor, that is to say, the whole body 



128 berger's broadsides 

of working people, in the possession of the products of 
their toil. We further point to the economic evolution 
— the trusts, combines, etc. — and say: If so much of 
what has been considered private property is to be ab- 
sorbed in great monopolistic ownership — and there is 
nothing that can stop it — then, if we are to remain a 
politically free people, the inevitable outcome will be 
that the people must take possession collectively of the 
production and distribution. And this is called Socialism, 
Now what is Single Tax? 
Henry George explains it as follows: 
"We propose to abolish all taxes save one single tax 
levied on the value of land, irrespective of the value of 
the improvements in or on it. 

''What we propose is not a tax on real estate, for real 
estate includes improvements. Nor is it a tax on land, 
for we would not tax all land, but only land having a 
value irrespective of its improvements, and would tax 
that in proportion to that value. 

''When we tax houses, shops, money, furniture, capital 
or wealth in any of its forms, we take from individuals 
what rightfully belongs to them. We violate the right 
of property, and in the name of the state commit robbery. 
But when we tax ground values we take from individuals 
what does not belong to them, but belongs to the com- 
munity, and which cannot be left to individuals, without 
the robbery of other individuals." 

Now there is no doubt that Socialists and Single 
Taxers agree on some points, only according to the 
teachings of history and political economy the Single 
Taxers put the cart before the horse. 

We want to abolish the wage system. In order to do 



A socialist's view of the single tax 129 

that, it IS necessary to abolish private property in capital. 
According to our ideas land is an important bastion in 
the fortress capital. And it is not simply we who main- 
tain this, but some capitalists also fear that George's 
land theories may hurt the present system and that is 
the reason they denounce him as a Socialist. George, 
and even more so his German disciple, Fleischheim, 
would like to make a compromise between individualism 
and Socialism. But their compromise is a failure. They 
would begin with the socialization of that part of the 
national wealth which is least ripe for it, because it is 
the least concentrated of any, where there are still over 
seven million owners of farms in the United States. 
This alone stamps "Single Tax'' as impossible. The col- 
lective ownership of land will be the last, not the first, 
measure of Socialism. 

Collectivism is now possible and necessary in very 
many branches, especially in those that have reached the 
form of a monopoly or trust — as Henry George rightly 
indicates — and have thereby proved that they have out- 
grown the competitive system. 

Furthermore, collectivism is now possible and neces- 
sary in mining of every description and in the owner- 
ship and management of all the means of transportation 
and in the various public utilities. 

But in our history Socialism in land is not possible 
now and will not be for a long time to come. 

For reasons not necessary to explain here, the effect 
of new inventions in agricultural machinery has only 
tended to strengthen the middle-sized farm. Many sci- 
entists and especially agronomists (specialists in agricul- 
ture) claim that the future in agriculture belongs to in- 



130 berger's broadsides 

tensive farming, not to farming on a large scale. At any 
rate, the farmers will for very many reasons be the last 
class to be expropriated by society. One very good rea- 
son IS that the farming class is so numerous that it 
would simply be impossible to do so. The other reason 
is that it is the aim of Socialism to return to the workers 
the instruments of production they have to use, and in 
the case of the farmers an expropriation would mean 
that we should take the land from the present owners 
and forthwith give it back to them. 

The farmers as a class naturally object to the Single 
Tax as much and more than they do to Socialism, before 
they understand it. The only difference is that they ob- 
ject to Single Tax a great deal more after they under- 
stand it. And there surely would be no cause for the 
proletariat to fight the farmers for the single tax. Land 
is still to be had very cheaply in many places in the 
northern part of the state of Wisconsin, at from three 
to five dollars an acre — in the southern states it is still 
cheaper. In 1898 land in Ashland County, Wis., was ad- 
vertised at 50 cents per acre — it was to be sold for the 
tax, a "single tax'' in that particular case. Fifty cents 
an acre, and only one-fourth of that in cash — that is al- 
most as good as "free land" under the rule of single tax 
— in some respects even better. But what benefit was 
the cheap land to the printer or the weaver out of a job? 
As A. M. Simons in his very readable pamphlet "Single 
Tax vs. Socialism" (Kerr &. Co., Chicago) very perti- 
nently remarks: "So long as capital remained private 
property and its owners continued to rule, there would 
be only one thing that the single taxer could do with his 
"free land" — he could take a sharpened stick and culti- 
vate it, and even then he would have to watch out that 



A socialist's view of the single tax 131 

some one did not get a corner on the sticks and leave 
him to scratch with his finger nails." 

To sum up: Single Tax has some good points — the 
Single Taxers have criticised the present system severely 
and helped to awaken the conscience of the nation. But 
it is no panacea for anything. 

Single Tax would not abolish our cut-throat competition 
— competition is considered by Henry George a corner- 
stone of civilization. On the contrary, Single Tax would 
sharpen competition. Single Tax would not do away 
with interest, nor abolish wage slavery. The main differ- 
ence between the present system and Single Tax would 
be that instead of many million landlords we would have 
only one landlord — the state — but the state would give 
the land only to the men who would be able to pay the 
''single tax," or to make improvements upon it. In every 
instance this would be the man with the "ready cash." 
Nowadays at least one poor person in a great many can 
sometimes inherit a piece of land and hold it, or sell it — 
this would be out of the question under the Single Tax. 
Only rich men would have a right to have and to hold 
valuable property. 



132 berger's broadsides 



The Social Evil. 

Written in October, 1907. 

"Certain Social Evils in Relation to Public Health 
and Morals'' were discussed in the Sunset Club of 
Milwaukee. 

It is characteristic that of the six speakers of the 
evening only one dared mention the word "prostitution." 
; Said Dr. F. Rogers : 

Three great perils threaten the health of modern society. 
The alcoholic peril, the tuberculosis peril and the social 
peril. 

This foul ulcer has lodged and vegetated in the vitals of 
society, infecting rich and poor, innocent and guilty alike, 
wrecking families, converting strong men into weaklings, 
dragging blooming womanhood down to hopeless invalidism, 
killing our unborn children, condemning thousands at birth 
to go through life sightless. And yet when a proposal is made 
to recognize its existence and devise ways and means of 
treating it, society shudders, closes its eyes and hides its 
head like the ostrich, calls it unspeakable and so hugs the 
venomous serpent closer to its bosom. 

And the doctor suggested "that every private school, 
primary school, high school, college and seminary should 
provide courses in the hygiene and pathology of sex." 

The above was the only suggestion of the evening 
deserving any serious consideration — ^but it will not cure 
the sznl. 



THE SOCIAL EVIL 



133 



There can be no question that syphilis, next to tuber- 
culosis, is the worst enemy of the human race. And 
gonorrhea is almost as bad. From 60 to 70 per cent 
of all cases of blindness of children are ascribed to that 
dread malady, which is very seldom cured; 75 per cent 
of all men in Chicago and New York are said to be 
affected. 

I will not go into details — that v/ould be beyond the 
scope of a newspaper article, although I agree with the 
speakers that the fullest publicity is imperative. 

Jji ^ 5|l 

And what is the cause of it all? 

Prostitution. 

There are no trustworthy statistics on this vital ques- 
tion in American cities — there is too much hypocrisy. 
But Paris has about 100,000 prostitutes, London has the 
same number, and there is no reason to believe that New 
York is any better in proportion to its size. 

Prostitution is as old as matrimony. 

^ jj: ^ 

Originally it had the form of religions prostitution — 
in honor of the goddess of love or matrimony. Thus 
women prostituted themselves in the temples of Babylon 
(for Mylitta), in Phenicia (for Astarte), in Egypt (for 
Isis), in Greece (for Aphrodite), in Rome (for Venus, 
later on also for Bacchus), etc. And the priests took 
the money. 

Christianity abolished these forms, but the seducing 
of girls and women and the commerce in vice took its 
place. Syphilis, which was absolutely unknown to the 
old Germanic tribes when they were heathens, came to 
them with Christianity and civilization. By the way. 



134 berger's broadsides 

this is also the manner in which all the wild tribes — 
Indians, Negroes, or South Islanders — got it in later 
centuries. They received it when they got the whisky 
from the traders and the Bible from the missionaries. 
Civilization for them usually means syphilization. 

He * * 

And I will say that the doctors are pretty well at sea, 
when it comes to the treatment of this question. The 
above mentioned opinion was about the best. 

Another "doctor'' proposed sexual abstinence as a 
remedy, and branded as a "heresy" — and a heretic is 
evidently the worst being he knows of — the idea that 
"sexual continence" is not compatible with the best of 
health. 

In the first place only one institution has ever tried 
this — namely, the Roman Catholic Church, for its 
clergy. It has ignominiously failed. Prostitution was 
never so universal as during the period when the church 
ruled supreme — according to Catholic authors. It was 
nowhere so much a state institution as in Rome and 
Avignon, where the popes resided. Nor was there ever 
such an aggregation of prostitutes seen in the world as 
during the church councils of Trent and Constance — and 
that in spite of all the efforts of the church to keep its 
members moral. 

3k * * 

And that is natural enough. Naturam expellas furca, 
tamen usque recurret — even if you knock nature with a 
club, it will always come back — and the strongest im- 
pulse of every organism (be it plant or animal) is to re- 
produce its kind. 

And as far as human beings are concerned — Love is 



THE SOCIAL EVIL l35 

the sum and solution of all desires in man — that in which 
they converge, for which they all exist. 

The other desires, the self-preservation desires — hunger, 
thirst, the desire for power — are strong indeed, but when 
they are satisfied, they all empty themselves in this one. 
Love is a flame which uses all the rest as its fuel. 

This natural law cannot be suppressed by any artificial 
law — statute or ecclesiastic. 

The trouble is only, when man cannot get the real 
article, he will accept a poisonous substitute, 

Hs * * 

And what is prostitution? Before all things, it is 
also a remnant of the days gone by when men used to 
buy their wives. Prostitution is very much the same 
thing today. Men buy their wives — some buy them for 
life, some buy them for a shorter time. 

The man who sells himself for life to a rich woman, or 
the woman who gives herself for life to a rich man, 
without love, is also a prostitute. 

The difference between the prostitute of the street and 
the woman marrying for life without love is simply a 
difference of degree, not of kind. 

And now to come to the bottom of the subject. Today 
the mainspring of prostitution is poverty. 

Very few daughters of rich men are to be found in 
the houses of prostitution. There are probably as many 
pathological cases — nymphomaniacs and ethical defec- 
tives — among rich women as among the poor, possibly 
more. 

But the rich find other ways of satisfying their propen- 
sities. 

An investigation in 1888 in Massachusetts of 3,866 



136 berger's j]Ruadsides 

prostitutes found 1,236 poor girls with no previous occu- 
pation, 1,155 were formerly servant girls, 505 were for- 
merly dressmakers and seamstresses, 292 came from 
factories, 126 from stores, 52 from the stage. 

:Jc Hf ♦ 

Let us take the case of the average hired girl or fac- 
tory girl, long, tedious hours and lack of refining pleas- 
ures. She naturally longs for something better. Besides, 
she is miserably underpaid. Is it a wonder that she 
often falls a prey to the first man who will take advan- 
tage of her? 

After she has once made a misstep, she rarely regains 
her hold, because every hand is against her. Everybody 
will push her further down. 

This is particularly the case of the women clerks in 
stores, who, besides, are continually in contact with the 
so-called upper classes, dressed in silks and satins. 

The temptation to accept offers of a "good time" — a 

dinner, an automobile ride — are tremendous. 
* * * 

And then there is the double standard of morals — still 
pretty generally accepted. 

It is the woman alone who is punished. It is the 
woman alone who is called a prostitute, although no 
woman has ever prostituted herself without a man. But 
nobody ever mentions the man. If he is caught, he is 
usually let go with a smile — or perhaps they run him for 
mayor later on. 

And here is another source — the majority of marriages 
in the middle and upper classes are simply convenience 
marriages, marriages without love. Naturally the men, . 
in many cases, look for ''substitute love." 



THE SOCIAL EVIL 137 

Still other men marry late in life. And many men can- 
not marry at all for economic reasons. 
All this means additional customers for prostitution. 

5jS JK * 

It is generally claimed and conceded in bourgeois 
circles that prostitution is necessary today in order to 
protect the virtue of their wives and daughters against 
attacks. 

Thus the prostitutes are made out to be a sort of 
patron-saints for "virtue" and ''morality." 

Furthermore, many highly ''respectable people," and 
even some churches, like Trinity church in New York, 
draw profits from the rent of these places. And some 
very respectable people in our city get big revenues from 
old shacks by renting them for purposes of prostitution. 

Now these highly respectable people are removed only 
one degree from the keeper of the house, as far as the 
source of the money is concerned. 

He Hi * 

One other point I want to bring out. Under our pre- 
sent society we permit everybody to marry without any 
regard for his moral or physical make-up. Wealth is the 
only consideration. We are more careful how we mate 
our horses, and dogs, and cattle, and even our swine, than 
we are in the mating of our boys and girls. 

* iji ♦ 

We shall have to make the dissolution of marriages 
much easier, than it is today. There is a great outcry in 
press and pulpit against the divorce courts — yet the 
divorce court is one of the greatest agencies that we have 
against prostitution. 



l38 berger's broadsides 

In short, if we want a different world we must emdn- 
cipate men and women economically, politically and so- 
cially. We must break with many prejudices if we want 
to look this grave question squarely in the face. We must 
cease to regard superstitions as holy because they are old. 

Courses in hygiene and pathology of sex are very laud- 
able — but this remedy is very much like Mrs. Partington 
trying to sweep the ocean back with a broom. 

* * * 

But what is the use of going into this matter any 
further ? I have said enough to prove that it is impossible 
to cope with this subject under the present capitalist 
system. 



THE SWISS SYSTEM l39 



The Swiss System. 

Written in June, 1908. 

AT THE LAST convention of the A. F. of L. in 
Norfolk, Va., I introduced a resolution asking for the 
abolition of the present militia system in the United 
States and for the introduction of the Swiss military 
system, or for some other method of arming in a well 
organized and orderly fashion every sober and reputable 
citizen of the United States. 

I asked the A. F. of L. to advise union men to stay 
away from the militia as it is now constituted. 
* * * 

Now the purpose of this measure was very much mis- 
represented. 

On one hand it was claimed that I would leave this 
country defenseless — that I was not a patriot — because 
I would boycott the militia. 

On the other hand, it was said that we want to "mill- 
tarize" everybody. James Duncan, the most unscrupulous 
of all our opponents, even characterized it as a "pistol 
resolution." 

But, in the first place, why are we against the militia? 

Simply because the militia is not a national guard as 
it was originally intended to be — but has simply become 
a body guard of the capitalist class and their property. 



140 berger's broadsides 

The militia is not now intended for the defense of 
this country against the foreign enemy. 

The spokesmen of the militia say plainly that they are 
here for the '^internal war'' — that is, for the purpose of 
holding down the masses. 

They are here to shoot down union men when upon 
strike and when the employers are afraid of losing the 
strike — when they import strike-breakers. 

The militia is the power behind "Boss" Farley, the 
king of strike-breakers. 

The militia is armed for that purpose. It is armed 
with so-called riot rifles and with Gatling guns. 

Our militia has never done any work against a for- 
eign enemy since the Revolutionary War, when it was 
rebel militia — except once in 1814. And then it ran away 
in the most shameful or shameless manner before the 
English troops, and Lord Ross sacked Washington and 
burned the Capitol. 

On the other hand, the militia has always shown a 
tremendous amount of heroism whenever arrayed against 
unarmed workmen. 

Now why are they such great heroes? Because the 
workmen can't shoot back. It is easy to shoot at a 
crowd which at the worst has only brick-bats or clubs. 

Every time the militia meets a mob of workmen the 
Battle on the Boyne is fought over again — and in many 
cases the battle is even fought against the Irish. 



Now I say that shooting down union men is not union 
work and ought not to be done by union men. Union 
men in the militia have sworn to obey orders. And when 



THE SWISS SYSTEM l41 

they are ordered to shoot they must shoot. Therefore 
union men ought to stay away from the militia. 

We know that the most peaceful strike is turned into 
a riot — and the most peaceful strikers are turned into 
rioters — the moment the militia appears in the field. 

The agents and spies of the manufacturers, the temper 
of the workingmen on strike — and the behaviour of the 
militia — will always bring about that result. 
* * * 

Almost invariably the appearance of the militia is also 
the signal for committing violence. 

If the strikers don't do it, then the Pinkerton detec- 
tives look out to see that it is done. And then the mi- 
litia gets into action and shows that it is made up of true 
patriotic and heroic stuff and it will shoot down men. 
women and children and break the strike. 

We know how the railroad strike was broken in 1894. 

We know of the ''heroic" deeds of General Shef man 
Bell in Colorado. We know of the great maxim of the 
militia: "To hell with the Constitution/' And how 
Bulkley Wells regards judicial decrees : ''Habeas corpus ? 
We will give them ''post mortems" instead !" 

There is not a country in the world where the capi- 
talist class is as ready and as willing to shoot down 
workingmen as in this country, excepting Russia. 

In Germany, Billy the Kaiser would think twice be- 
fore he would give an order to shoot down workingmen. 
He told the Westphalian manufacturers and mine owners 
so, when they asked him for help in a coal strike. 

In France such an occurrence is very rare. We seldom 
hear of it in Ensrland. 



142 berger's broadsides 

But in this country not only the militia shoots at 
workmen on the slightest provocation, but the deputy 
sheriffs and even the policemen do likewise. 



In Switzerland there was also a very big railroad 
strike in 1897. Every railroad in the country was tied up. 

Did the government use the militia and the regular 
troops as they did in this country? 

Oh, no. 

In Switzefland every citizen is a soldier from his 
twentieth year until he gets to be forty-eight years of 
age. And he keeps his government rifle at home. 

This fact makes it impossible for the employing class 
to use the militia against the workingmen on strike, un- 
less there is an overwhelming sentiment among the 
other workingmen to do so. The employers cannot do it. 

In the first place, the working class far outnumbers 
the employers. And in the second place, even if the 
militia of other cantons should be transported to the 
scene of the strike, the strikers themselves are just as 
well armed, and just as proficient in the use of arms as 
any possible assailants. And that, of course, settles the 
question. 

The militia of Switzerland is in reality the Swiss peo- 
ple in arms. It can only be used where public opinion 
is entirely in favor of its being used. 

So when the railroad strike of 1897 occurred in 
Switzerland, all the government could do to settle the 
strike was to buy the railroads and operate them. And 
the government has been successfully operating them 
ever since. 



THE SWISS SYSTEM 143 

In connection with the arming of the people it might 
also interest our readers to learn that there are more 
murders committed in Chicago or in New York in a 
week than in all Switzerland in a whole year. 

And, bear in mind, the Swiss are the best armed peo- 
ple in the world, and the Americans are the most dis- 
armed, the Hindoos, Chinese and Russians excepted. 

The big capitalists do not want the people armed. 
Why ? The British would not allow the Hindoos to be 
armed. Nor can the czar of Russia afford to arm the 
great masses of his subjects. 

And our plutocrats can least of all afford the arming 
of the people. The capitalist class might have to con- 
sider the people occasionally. And the capitalists do not 
want to do that. 

And that is right. We are a subjugated nation. We 
have been conquered by the capitalist class. And con- 
quered nations are always disarmed. And they deserve 
no consideration. 

On the other hand, only an armed nation is always a 
free nation. Ever since the times of the Romans and 
the Greeks a nation in arms could never be held in sub- 
jugation. 

The American colonists of 1776 were probably the 
best armed people of the world in their day. They were a 
population of hunters, armed farmers and armed traders. 
They were always ready, and knew how to use their 
guns, because of danger at all times from Indian attacks. 

The American colonists of that day were practically all 
frontiersmen. ^ And when the British did not like the 



144 berger's broadsides 

American boycott of English tea and tried to send troops 
to break down that big strike in Boston, then they 
showed them at Lexington and at Bunker Hill and at 
Saratoga and finally at Yorktown, what it means to try 
to break down a strike with the help of soldiers when 
all the people are armed. 

A similar example in history we witnessed a few years 
ago in the case of the Boers. The Boers were only a 
handful of armed farmers, but it took ten trained Eng- 
lish soldiers to every one of those farmers to subjugate 
them and disarm them. 

Now the Boers make no more trouble. They would 
now even stand for Coolie immigration, if they were 
compelled to do so — because they can not resist any 
longer. 

H? * 5JJ 

But I will say this: 

If the American people would accept the Swiss mili- 
tary system or some similar method of arming, in an 
organized and orderly fashion, every sober and reputable 
citizen, then this country at once would become the 
greatest and strongest democracy this world has ever 
seen. 

As it is now, we only have the biggest plutocracy and 
may soon have a monarchy, based upon some "big stick,'' 
and the necessity of keeping the great "unwashed" in 
his place. 

I predict that if a capitalist congress and capitalist 
legislature would tomorrow decide that no man is fit to 
vote who does not pay at least fifty dollars taxes per 
year — or if they would tomorrow decide that the work- 
ing class is not fit for the ballot, because the workingmen 



THE SWISS SYSTEM 145 

didn't know how to use it when they had it — then the 
working class would have to submit to the inevitable. 
It would have to accept the new condition without re- 
sistance as a new decree of God Almighty or of his 
junior partner, George F. Baer. 

H^ ^ >i» 

On the other hand, it is clear that a scientific and sys- 
tematic arming of all citizens — a real national guard — 
and the general introduction of the Initiative, Referen- 
dum, Imperative Mandate and Proportional Representa- 
tion — would make it possible to introduce a Socialist Re- 
public gradually, peaceably and without any convulsions 
and revolutions. It might possibly take a little longer 
— and yet it would prove to be the shortest route in the 
end. 

And it would probably be accomplished without the 
spilling of a drop of blood — ^by methods of democracy 
and by having the power to assert the will of democracy. 

I say, if we want to save democracy we must make it 
possible for democracy to defend itself. 
That was the purpose of my resolution. 



146 berger's broadsides 



Is an Alliance Possible? 

Written in March, 1907. 

At a recent convention in Minneapolis, a national farm- 
ers' organization, called the Sons of Equity, sought an 
alliance with the American Federation of Labor. The 
farmers promised to patronize union-made goods. On 
the other hand, they demanded that the trades unionists 
should help them to get better prices for farm products. 

The Sons of Equity did not try to hide at all the fact 
that they were simply after more money for grain, meat, 
butter, eggs, etc. This in the last analysis the city work- 
men would have to pay, although the farmers did hot say 
so. But they told the delegates at the convention that 
by making money on the farm, boys and girls would 
stay on the farm and not flock to the cities. Thus they 
would diminish competition for labor in the factories. 

So far, so good. 

* Ns * 

The difficulty in this case is, however, that the farmers 
will not be able to keep their boys and girls on the farm 
as long as the farmer's life is what it is — dreary and lone- 
some and lacking the advantages of modern civilization. 
The farmer boys and farmer girls hunger for modern 
life, for theaters, concerts and other entertainments. The 
farmer boys and girls read of these things in the papers 
and they want to see and enjoy them. They are not sat- 



IS AN ALLIANCE POSSIBLE l47 

isfied with an occasional circus or a revival meeting — as 
were the old folks who did not read papers and maga- 
zines. 

This is one reason why the young folks do not wish 
to stay on the farm. 

Hs * ik 

But there is another reason. Hope eternal springs in 
every human breast, and false hopes are kindled in every 
school building and every class room of this country. 
The pupils hear and read of some farmer's boy who 
went into the city and became a millionaire or a railroad 
president, although starting as a molder's helper or street 
car driver. So the boy goes to the city and becomes a 
molder's helper or looks for a job on a street car. And 
in 9,999 cases out of 10,000 he will stay on that job all 
the rest of his life, and make competition for the city 
proletarian. 

The Sons of Equity can do nothing to help this, no 
matter what they promise. 



And now let us take up the second proposition — in 
regard to getting higher prices for their products. 

The farmers, just at the present time, get better prices 
for their products than ever before in the history of 
America since the Civil war. Eggs are 35 cents a dozen, 
wheat is over a dollar, meat is more expensive than it 
ever has been since the war. And mind you, all this is 
not on a cheap money basis, but on a gold basis. 

Many farmers all over the country have paid off their 
mortgages. Many have money in the banks. Many 
have pianos, fine carpets and other luxuries which they 



148 berger's broadsides 

never had before. This is an epoch of unparalleled pros- 
perity for the capitalist and a period of money-making 
for the farmer. 

* * * 

But what do the wage-workers have? They are, as a 
rule, just as poor now as they were eight or nine years 
ago, although they are constantly employed. And the 
standard of living of the man and woman working in the 
shop, and the man and woman working for a "salary" 
has absolutely gone down, although many of them do 
not realize it. The necessities of life have gone up 55 
per cent since 1897, while wages have only gone up 
from 10 to 15 per cent. 

The workmen eat less and poorer meat, and they get 
more oleomargarine and less butter. They wear more 
shoddy and less woolen goods than they used to wear. 
If the prices of wool and meat and of butter should go 
up still further, then their standard of living would go 
down still further. 

As for the promise of the farmers to patronize only 
union made goods, that, of course, in the first place, 
would help the manufacturer of those goods. And, in 
the second place, the wives of the farmers do most of 
the buying, and it is one hundred to one that they will 
buy where they can buy the cheapest, union or non-union. 
The farmers' wives are known to be very thrifty. And, - 
in the third place, a large part of the buying is done 
through catalogue houses, and the rest through country 
stores. There is no union sentiment in those places. 

The promise of the Sons of Equity to buy union goods 
and thereby raise the wages of the proletarians amounts 
to virtually nothing in practice. 



IS AN ALLIANCE POSSIBLE 149 

The truth o£ the matter is that these two classes — the 
agriculturists and the city proletarians — are much too 
large in numbers to get together for the purpose of plun- 
dering the capitalist class in its capacity as a consumer. 

By putting up the prices of the necessities of life they 
would inevitably plunder each other, never the capitaHst 
class, which owing to its small numbers, consumes only 
a very small percentage of the total product of either 
farm or factory. 

Therefore the idea that the trades unions and the 
farmers should get together on the basis of the present 
system and on the basis of keeping up the present com- 
petitive methods, each simply grabbing all they can, must 
surely be a failure. And for a while, at least, the work- 
man in the city (and the man working for a salary) 
would get the worst of it. But in the end both sides 
would get left. 

:}: jfc 3js 

All this does not say that the farmers have no good 
reason for complaint. While they are enjoying a period 
of prosperity just now, they are exploited by the rail- 
roads, the elevator trust (which in a good many instances 
means the same thing as the railroads), by the bankers 
and the commission houses. So the fact is that the farm- 
ers are really exploited by the middle man. Therefore 
the elimination of the middle man is the actual basis on 
which they can unite with the proletariat. 

!jc * * 

In order to be successful, such an alliance mustclosely 
follow the economic development of the country. It can 
only be done by each class honestly taking care of its 



150 berger's broadsides 

own class interests. And it can only be done on a politi- 
cal basis. 

Now, to begin with, I am frank to say that the Social- 
ists of this country will have to give up some of their 
illusions and some of their cast-iron phrases. 

Karl Marx's theory about the concentration of indus- 
try and the big fellows eating up the small ones and the 
trusts being the final outcome of capitalist individual 
ownership has not proven true in the Held of agriculture. 
At least not up till today, nor for any time that can be 
foreseen today. We do not know whether it will be true 
in a hundred years or not, nor are we figuring on that. 

The average size of the farm in America has not 
changed materially within the last thirty years. And, 
if anything, it has become no larger, but a little smaller. 

* * * 

But fortunately Social-Democrats have other facts in 
their favor. Socialist measures will benefit the farmers 
as they benefit the city workers. We can show the farm- 
ers where and how far the national ownership of the 
means of transportation and communication, of the rail- 
roads, telegraphs, boat lines, elevators, etc., would benefit 
them immediately. We can also show that collective 
ownership of all the trusts, big iron industries, and mines 
would help to raise the farmers to a standard of culture, 
comfort and civilization of which they dare not even 
dream today. 

And on that basis, on the basis of the national owner- 
ship of transportation facilities and national ownership 
of the trusts, there is a close alliance possible today be- 
tween the farmers and the city proletariat, with tremen- 
dous benefits for both sides. 



IS AN ALLIANCE POSSIBLE l5l 

And for generations to come, there is no other basis 
possible. Especially since we do not know whether the 
economic development in the farming industry will finally 
wind up in the "bonanza farm" or in ''intensive small 
farming" or in both. 

II 

A WAY must be found to get the producers of the 
country together, to get the farmers and the city prole- 
tariat into close touch. But it cannot be done on the 

trades union basis. 

* * * 

To begin with, we have in this country no class of farm 
laborers who have been wage-laborers for generations, 
nor even of those who have to remain v/age laborers for 
life. It is easy for a farm laborer who is willing to work 
hard to become a farm renter, and later on a farm owner. 
If he has saved one or two hundred dollars, he can start 
out to rent a farm. Even the negroes down South who 
are not very provident, usually succeed in this. In fact, 
almost every real farmer can soon start out to buy a 
farm, for there is plenty of land in Wisconsin and other 
Northwestern states and in the South to be had for five 
dollars an acre. In the eastern states he can at least 
rent one for little money. So if a man stays a hired 
farm hand all his life in this country, there is something 
the matter with him. 

As a matter of fact, it is exceedingly hard all over the 
country to get hired farm help. In Waukesha county, 
Wisconsin, hired men are oflFered thirty dollars a month 
and their board and washing. Yet help is scarce at this 
price. So it is nonsense to figure on an established class 
of farm hands which as a fixed class does not exist. 



152 berger's broadsides 

Of course, people ought not to study the farm question 
on the east side of New York or on the west side of Chi- 
cago or from books. They should go out and observe 
with their own eyes. 



I will not try here to explain this phenomenon, and 
why, in spite of the introduction of machinery, concen- 
tration has not taken place in the farming industry as it 
has in the factories. I will mention only one or two 
points. 

The first is that the introduction of machinery in farm- 
ing has not changed the entire mode of production as 
it has in the factory. 

In the factory, the introduction of machinery has re- 
sulted in a tremendous division of labor, one article some- 
times going through fifty hands, before the product is 
finished. Furthermore the big and costly machine has ab- 
solutely pushed out of existence the small manufacturer 
and his shop. 

This has not been the case in agriculture. After the 
introduction of machinery, the mode of production has 
more or less still remained the same. The wheat is grow- 
ing in very much the same way as before, and cattle re- 
quire just about the same kind of care. The machine 
has so far helped only the middlesized farmer. It has 
made it possible for him to run a farm of about 120 to 
160 acres with the help of a grown son and dispensing 
with a hired man, where formerly he had to have a hired 
man besides his son for a farm of that size. 

So the introduction of machinery has not worked the 
revolution on the farm which it made in the factory. 



IS AN ALLIANCE POSSIBLE 153 

The other point is that while capitalism has found it 
profitable to go into cattle and sheep raising on a large 
scale, and into beet sugar and vineyards, capitalism has 
failed whenever it has tried other branches of farming 
on a large scale. 

The bonanza farms have failed or are not paying. 

The cause of this is pretty plain. The introduction of 
costly machinery in factories pays because the capital in- 
vested is used all the year around. In other words, the 
machinery is used every day in the year, sometimes even 
in two or three shifts. 

In farming this is not the case. 

Most of the machinery can be used only a few weeks in 
the year, and the rest of the time it lies idle. 

The farmers help themselves to the more expensive 
machinery either by having co-operative threshing 
machines, co-operative creameries, etc., or by simply rent- 
ing the service of a threshing machine that is continually 
going from place to place. These circumstances, of 
course, are not favorable for the growth of capitalism in 

agriculture. 

* * * 

On the other hand, this co-operation of the farmers, of 
which we have hundreds of examples in Wisconsin, and 
just as many in other states, is bound to form the sec- 
ond bridge that will connect the farmer with- the prole- 
tarian movement. 

The first bridge necessarily will be the political move- 
ment — ^the movement for the nationalization of the big 
transportation facilities, the mines and the trusts. 

Co-operation, although still in its infancy, will have a 



154 berger's broadsides 

great and beneficial influence on the laborers in the cities, 
and very soon it will be fully as important as the politi- 
cal and the trade union movements. At the same time co- 
operation will be as wide spread and as valuable for the 

farmers as for the city workers. 

* * * 

So here is another link. 

Electricity makes it possible to use small machinery 
and transport power from great distances to the farm. 
And we do not as yet know the possibilities of this for 
the farmer — if the state or the collectivity in some form 
should own the electric power. 

* Hj * 

Therefore it would be useless to ask the farmers to 
stand for a collective ownership of all the means of pro- 
duction and distribution that would require them to give 
up their farms. Socialism wants to restore property to 
the propertyless, not to take property from those who 
make good use of it. Socialism wants to restore prop- 
erty to the factory workers, and there it can be done only 
in a collective manner. But it would be criminal and ab- 
surd to try to take away the land from the farmers as 
long as they are the only ones who can use it for them- 
selves and for the nation, and as long as they are fairly 
prosperous. 

Besides, it could not he done. Any attempt of that 
kind would very soon end with the worst disaster for the 
city proletariat that the world has ever seen. The failure 
of the Paris Commune would be child's play compared 
with that catastrophe. 

* * 3}J 

In political affairs and especially in class politics, it is 
useless to deal in hollow phrases. We have to consider 



IS AN ALLIANCE POSSIBLE 155 

realities and facts. It is foolish for one class to try to 

get the support of the other by promising it the millenium 

in the distant future. Promises for the distant future 

will not go. Intelligent men want realities and want them 

today. 

* * * 

I will close with a quotation from Wilhelm Liebknecht. 
He says: 

"It is true that both farmers and small shopkeepers are 
still in the camp of our adversaries, but only because they 
do not understand the causes that underHe their condi- 
tion. It is of prime importance for our party to enlighten 
them and bring them over to our side. This is a vital 
question for our party, because these two classes form the 
majority of the nation. It would be both stupid and 
naive to insist that we should have a majority sealed 
and ready in our pockets before we begin to apply our 
principles. But it would be still more naive to imag- 
ine that we could put our principles into practice against 
the will of the immense majority of the nation." 

So the way must be found. 



156 berger's broadsides 



Only Seventeen Days to the Battle! 

Written October 17, 1908. 

ONLY two weeks before election, or ''still two weeks" 
• — according as you take it. Only he is with us heart 
and soul who understands that for a Social-Democrat to 
do his duty in this election, a short period of two weeks 
would hardly suffice. 

* * * 

A man who is a soldier in this great international 
^rmy is not doing his duty only by voting the ticket. A 
man who merely does that and allows others to do the 
fighting, simply plucks the fruit of a victory, which he 
did not help to achieve. He even diminished the extent 
of the victory by his failure to make new recruits. 

His vote certainly counts, but he might have multiplied 
it five or tenfold. 

Only two weeks intervene between now and the elec- 
tion. But every one of these days is precious to the 
Social-Democrat, while every day is lost which he allows 
to pass without doing something to further our cause. 
* * * 

The celebrated Greek painter, Appelles, loved his art 
so much that he would let no day go by without adding 
at least a few lines to his picture. The Latin proverb, 



ONLY SEVENTEEN DAYS TO THE BATTLE 157 

"Nulla dies sina linea" (No day without a stroke) thus 
originated . 

Why should not a Social-Democrat manifest as much 
zeal for the furtherance of Socialism as an artist shows 
for his art ? ^k * * 

^From now until election let no day pass without direct- 
ing a stroke against capitalism. 

One need not be a writer, an orator or an agitator to 
do this. 

In the early morning hour, when on the way to work, 
the Social-Democrat can fly his flag — the Socialist press. 
In Milwaukee and Wisconsin this consists of the Social' 
Democratic Herald and the Vorwaerts. Leave your So- 
cial-Democratic paper or a pamphlet lying on your car 
seat to be read after you have reached ''your corner." 
This is one simple and easy way. 

However, every sympathizer of labor and of Socialism 
should at all times be equipped with a few leaflets, papers 
or pamphlets, and deposit them where they will do most 
good. Women as well as men can aid in this work, 
especially the women. Naturally we must go about this 
in a practical and judicious way, not failing to take into 
account the many languages that are spoken in Milwau- 
kee. But the spirit of Socialism is uniting all national- 
ities. 

The distribution on Sunday mornings — our old estab- 
lished Milwaukee feat — is, of course, still a main feature 
of the campaign. We still have three Sundays. Let every 
comrade take special pride in this distribution. It is a 
great work and everybody can help there. - 

He 5f« * 

From now on, comrades, until election, consider the 
time different from usual. Make every day not a holiday, 



158 berger's broadsides 

but a **holy day" devoted to the cause. 

These 17 days are fighting days, and, as in the German 
army, "war days count double," see to it that these days 
count tenfold. 

* * Jfc 

Let your first thought be each day, what task can 1 
fulfill today? 

Find a man who is wavering, but whom you could 
convince. 

/ Find a man, or a couple of men, who would vote our 
ticket, but who are not registered. Tell them to register 
on Tuesday, October 2^ — that is the last chance to re- 
gister. 

Find a man who is with us, but who is not a member 
of our party organization. 

Make a note of people who have moved in or moved 
out of your election precinct. 

Look over the registration list of your precinct and 
see whether all who have a right to register have done 
so — or whether there is a false registration. 

Get subscribers for the Social-Democratic Herald and 
for the Vorwaeris, 

Get your friends and neighbors, and wives and grown 
children to attend our meetings. 

Get contributions for the campaign fund and explain 
that we will not accept anything from the Standard Oil 
company or the capitalist class, therefore, we must bear 
the expense of the campaign ourselves. 
* * * 

Do all this during the next seventeen days, and your 
work will redound to your credit all your life. You will 
always look back upon these days as "real holidays" — 
spent in the war for humanity. 



LABOR LEARNS IN THE SCHOOL OF EXPERIENCE 159 



Labor Learns in the School of 
Experience. 

Written December 2, 1905. 

ENGLAND is the home of modern trade unionism. 
There the trades unions developed directly from the old 
guilds and journeymen's societies of the Middle Ages. 
It is natural that in England every skilled workman 
should belong to a union, and under the influence of So- 
cialist thought and Socialist agitation, a good many 
unions of non-skilled laborers have been formed, as for 
instance, the dockmen's union through John Burns, and 
'the gasworkers' union through Will Thorne. 

Yet although over a million and a half of organized 
w^orkmen belong to the trade unions in England — which 
are a giant army of themselves — the trade union move- 
ment of England has failed to emancipate the wage- 
workers or even to alleviate the condition of the masses. 
Just now the telegraph every day reports the tremendous 
demonstrations of starving workingmen in London, Bir- 
mingham, and other towns. The English trade unionists 
begin to understand, that without a political class move- 
ment, their economic struggle is hopeless. Our American 
fraternal delegates to Europe reported in Pittsburg that 
what most struck them at the last British Trade Union 
Congress as different from our American conventions, 
was the fact that almost all the time was taken up with 



360 berger's broadsides 

politics, and with the discussion of the political labor 
movement. 

So the workingmen in England have finally come to 
the same conclusion which the workingmen in Germany, 
France, Belgium, Italy, Austria, Holland, Sweden, Nor- 
way, etc., reached long ago — that the economic movement 
alone is absolutely insufficient even to materially and per- 
manently improve the condition of the working class, let 
alone the abolition of wage slavery. They find now in 
England also that it is absolutely necessary for the work- 
ers to get hold of the latch of legislation if they intend 
to accomplish anything worth while and anything lasting. 

* * * 

In Germany, as we all know, the development of the 
labor movement was from exactly the opposite direction. 
There Ferdinand Lassalle started the modern labor move- 
ment absolutely upon a political basis. The AUgemeine 
Deutsche Arbeiter-Verein demanded before all things the 
universal electoral franchise for the workers, and then a 
hundred million dollars from the Prussian State, in order 
to start a co-operative workshop system. These demands, 
as all the others which Lassalle formulated, were purely 
political in their character. Lassalle and the iron clad Las- 
ssalleans had nothing but derision for the trade unions 
which had been held up as one of the main panaceas for 
the working people by Lassalle's bourgeois opponent, 
Schultze-Delitsch. In the heat of the fight, Lassalle 
naturally went too far in his opposition to the trade 
unions. But even Lassalle's friend and successor in the 
dictatorship of the AUgemeine Deutsche Arbeiter-Verein 
and the young Socialist party of the time, Johann v. 
Schweitzer, by the mere force of conditions, found him- 



LABOR LEARNS IN THE SCHOOL OF EXPERIENCE 161 

self compelled to start trade unions of his own, which 
have grown to a membership of about 1,400,000, that is, 
they have now about as many members as the English 
trade union movement. 

Thus while in England the tendency for a long time 
was to regard the political side of the labor question as 
something secondary — the labor representatives usually 
voted with the Liberal party — in Germany, on the other 
hand, the trade union movement was considered of less 
account until of late. For even the early Marxian Social- 
ists in Germany had little or no use for the trade unions. 
As a matter of fact, since the Lassallean wing had started 
the trade union movement, the Gewerkschaften, the early 
Marxians thought it their duty to fight them as much as 
possible — until 1875, when the union of the Lasalleans 
and the Eisenachers was afifected. And similar condi- 
tions to those which forced upon the attention of the Eng- 
lish working class the necessity of a strong political class 
movement, forced also upon the German working class 
the necessity of developing a strong economic movement 
of the laboring class. 

* * * 

So the political struggle, as an equally powerful factor 
with the economic struggle, is now becoming the watch- 
word in England, and the strongest possible trade union 
movement, as a necessary help and adjunct to the political 
movement, is now the central idea of the Social-Democ- 
racy of Germany. At the last convention of the party, 
Bernstein and Bebel went so far as to strongly endorse 
and advocate the idea of a general political strike — an idea 
which in former years has been repeatedly rejected as 
anarchistic. Bebel even now would only use it in case of 



162 berger's broadsides 

an attempt to disfranchise the workers in Germany — 
which the Junker party, the nobiHty and the emperor 
would very much like to try — and this would be a case of 
answering with anarchy from below the anarchy from 
above. Bernstein, however, would like to go very much 
further in the use of the strike weapon for political pur- 
poses. 

So, at any rate, the trade unionists pure and simple, as 
well as the Socialist politicians pure and simple, have 
pretty nearly disappeared in the labor movement of the 
world. The American labor movement derived its roots 
from England on the one side and Germany on the other. 
From England it received the idea of the trade union 
pure and simple, which was in vogue in England years 
ago, but is now being discarded. From Germany, the 
American labor movement received its Socialism, an idea 
which originally was purely political, but now takes in 
the trade union movement. 

But thanks to the fervor of the Socialists in the eight- 
ies of the last century, we see from the beginning of the 
trade union movement in America a constant fight. The 
Socialists at first tried to run the trade unions simply as 
an appendix to the Socialist party, and fought and villi- 
fied the labor leaders who resisted; while on the other 
^and, these labor leaders — some of whom were capitalist 
politicians — ^made use of these attacks to make the trades 
V unionists of the country believe that the Socialists were 
the enemies of the trade unions. This war went on re- 
lentlessly for years and found its first natural expression, 
when Daniel DeLeon (who made his entrance into the 
Socialist movement in 1892) started the Socialist Trade 
and Labor Alliance in 1896 in opposition to the American 



LABOR LEARNS IN THE SCHOOL OF EXPERIENCE 163 

Federation of Labor, for the purpose of creating a purely 
political trade union movement. DeLeon was logical 
from the old Socialist standpoint, but that standpoint was 
wrong and the attempt necessarily failed* 

Since then, even the most fanatic Lassallean Socialists 
in America could not help but learn from the example of 
the Socialist parties in Europe and also from the failure 
of their own tactics in this country. The trouble is only 
that they went to the opposite extreme. And while they 
formerly tried to inject Socialist politics into the trades 
unions, examples of which were the Socialist Trade and 
Labor Alliance and later the American Labor Union, they 
now try to inject trade unionism into Socialist poHtics 
and to solve political questions by the trade union. The 
trade union is now the fetich before which we must bow 
down. And ''industrialism,'' — a term which simply signi- 
fies one form of an organization for trades unions and 
per se has nothing to do with Socialism — is in future to 
be considered by Socialists as the magic key which will 
open the gate of freedom for the American proletariat. 
The result of this other extreme was the formation last 
June of the Industrial Workers of the World in Chicago, 
which in its platform demands that the trade union 
should also do the work of a political party. That is its 
sense, if any sense can be made out of its contradictions. 



As usual, both extremes are wrong. The truth lies in 
the middle. 

The trade union and the Socal-Democratic party are 
both a part of the labor movement, but they have differ- 
ent and separate functions. 



164 berger's broadsides 

The trade union seeks the raising of wages in accord- 
ance with the conditions of the labor market, the aboli- 
tion of overtime and better pay for it when it is abso- 
lutely necessary. Every trade union strives to secure 
more human working conditions. Every trade union 
opposes the reduction of wages. Every trade union 
strengthens the feeling of solidarity, Every trade union 
is a promise of a better standard of living for the work- 
ing class. 

So much for the trade union. 

On the other hand, every lost strike — and every strike 
won — teaches the trades union man that his economic 
struggle alone is entirely inadequate. Wage scales adopted 
are incapable of overbridging the chasm between labor 
and capital. The fight will break out again, and must 
break out again. And the interference of the capitalist 
states and municipal governments — the police, the court, 
the military — constantly reminds the wage-workers that 
the economic rule of the capitalist class culminates in its 
political rule. 

It also reminds the workers that the only adequate 
weapon is the ballot. 

The concentration of wealth, the formation of trusts, 
the industrial crisis, do the rest. 

Result? Every thinking trades union man is bound to 
join the Social-Democratic party, sooner or later. 

H< H( ^ 

And this is what we mean when we say that we must 
have a two-armed labor movement — a labor movement 
with a political arm and with an economic arm. Each 
arm has its own work to do, and one arm ought not to 
'nterfere w^ith the other, although they are parts of the 



LABOR LEARXS IX THE SCHOOL OF EXPERIENCE 165 

same body. That is the ''Milwaukee idea." In the per- 
sonal union of the workers of both, that is, in having 
the same persons take an active interest in both the trade 
union and the political labor movement, we find the 
strongest connecting link between the Social-Democratic 
party and the trade union organization. This idea works 
successfully not only in Milwaukee, but everywhere 
wherever the true relationship between trades unionism 
and Socialism is rightly understood. Then we find the 
same men, with the same thoughts, aims, and ideals, 
working in the economic and the political field, thus form- 
ing a grand army moving on two roads for the abolition 
of the capitalist system. 



166 berger's broadsides 



Socialism is a Question of De- 
velopment. 

Written December 30, 1905. 

EVERY new truth tends to become a commonplace. 
Every exception tends to form a rule, originality to 
become a type. 

The commonplace of today was the originality of 
yesterday. To compare the eyes of one's sweetheart to 
stars today is trite and silly, but originally the compari- 
son was wonderfully poetical; and just because it was 
beautiful, it was repeated over and over till it was 
spoiled. 

So it is with all wisdom and knowledge. 

A modern labor convention contains a good deal more 
wisdom than was probably required in Greek or Roman 
senates, for the mental labor of the best thinkers and 
investigators of the past, joined to the knowledge of the 
present, there find their expression. Many old catchwords 
and phrases may be heard, but all these not long ago 
were considered fine, significant, original ideas. They, 
however, have come into common use, and thus have 
lost the charm of novelty. They are no longer sensa- 
tional ! That is all. But the new sensational ideas of to- 
day are not therefore better, wiser or truer. 

The commonplace of today is not only the originality 
of yesterday, but it is yesterday's heart, its life-blood; 



SOCIALISM IS A QUESTION OF DEVELOPMENT 167 

for only that which was actually good and of great value 
could survive and expand into common use. 

What before was new and bold, for instance, Coper- 
nicus' discovery that the earth revolves around the sun, 
or Harvey's discovery of the circulation of the blood, 
and a thousand other things, are now taught in all the 
schools and have thus become as commonplace as the art 
of reading or writing. Public speaking was a rare art 
not long ago. Now oratory among the masses is quite 
a matter of course. The ballot and the present education 
of the people are the results of the mental labor and the 
efforts of the best men of the recent past. 

The so-called genius of today will be the "philistine" 
of tomorrow. 

jjc jfs * 

If living men of genius were gathered together in one 
assemblage, they would by no means exhibit an astonish- 
ing amount of intellect, but would merely show them- 
selves up as average men, as ordinary philistines. The 
fact is simply this — every genius, besides his one-sided 
specialty, which makes him a remarkable individuality, 
has many qualities in common with his neighbors and 
with all nameless human beings. All these common 
qualities we will call A. Besides these, each man of 
genius has something peculiar, but which with each one 
of them is different. These peculiarities we will call B, 
C, D, E, etc. If a hundred men of genius were tog;ether, 
we should have a hundred A's, but only one B, one C, 
one D, E, F, G, H, etc. And in every vote the hundred 
average men A would always prevail, and the individuals 
B, C, D, E, F, etc. would continually remain alone in 
their wisdom. 

One hundred men of genius in public affairs are there- 



168 berger's broadsides 

fore equal to one hundred philistines and probably would 
be even very retrogressive, since it is well known that 
remarkable strength in one direction is usually attained 
at the expense of all other faculties of the individual. 
These one hundred men of genius, being human in other 
respects, would probably turn out remarkably reactionary. 
America is pretty rich in men of genius, but in con- 
sequence of their natural peculiarities, they are called 
"'cranks" for short. This does not prove that every crank 
is a genius. 

Hi * * 

What Social-Democrats teach, and their entire termin- 
ology, which twenty-five years ago in Europe and Amer- 
ica was sensational, unheard-of and incomprehensible, is 
now understood by almost everybody. The complete for- 
mulas of Socialism are already beginning in many circles 
to become very commonplace. 

Even a bourgeois-radical movement, like the Hearst 
movement in New York, for instance, ten years ago 
would have been impossible, but now only the large 
capitalists are alarmed by it. 

The bold and original thinkers, who always outstrip 
their age, need not be silent because they are not per- 
fectly understood, nor should they withhold the fruits of 
their mental labor. 

But they should not fall into a tone of military author- 
ity or strike a commanding attitude, for then they would 
neither be listened to nor understood, and would only 
hurt their cause. They must rather preach, teach, agitate, 
and unweariedly present the same arguments. 

The more frequently they are repeated, the more com- 
mon, the more current their ideas will become, until at 
last these ideas are universally known and acknowledged. 



SOOTALISM IS A QUESTION OF DEVELOPMENT 169 

and the most obstinate philistine will declare that he has 
always said so. 

Our whole agitation is a question of time, since aver- 
age men want to inherit their views and not work them 
out. The new teaching, which was brought to the know- 
ledge of one generation even against its will, will be 
accepted by the following generation as quite a matter 
of course. Ideas which were known to one generation, 
will be tried by the next, and if advantageous, will be 
adopted. 



On this rests the ever growing power of Socialism. 
By the millions, it will no longer be regarded as some- 
thing new, unheard-of, but it will be tried, found useful 
and adopted among other conquered thoughts and ideas. 
Then these millions will only wait for a favorable oppor- 
tunity to realize their idea with the least possible sacrifice. 

Such a harvest is now ripening for Social-Democracy 
within the capitalistic world in the minds of the masses, 
and no capitalistic genius has the power, by any new 
artful illusion, to divert their thoughts from the new 
system and its trial ! 

To understand Social-Democracy is to accomplish it. 
Its most powerful enemies at present are old traditions 
and habits of thought. But these old notions are very 
out-of-date and threadbare. Moreover, the actual facts 
have so plainly demonstrated them to be false, that 
they have lost their power even over the unthinking 
multitude. All new menjal labor is for the benefit of 
progress and directly or indirectly aids Socialism. The 
old dies, the new grows full of vital power. The moment 



170 berger's broadsides 

is approaching, when the new society will be freed from 
its old swaddling-clothes. 

And this entire process we call mental development. 



Getting on the Band Wagon. 

Written February 3, 1906. 

THE PLATFORM of the Social-Democratic party 
demands the collective ownership of all the means of 
production and distribution, namely, land, mines, mills, 
factories, railroads, etc., for the purpose of operating the 
industries in the interest of the whole people. 

The Socialists say that this is no Utopian dream, but 
the necessary natural outcome of the development of 
capitalist society. 

Antagonists of Socialism used to say that collective 
ownership was impossible because the personal super- 
vision and control of the owner was absolutely necessary 
to the success of any enterprise. But today we see that 
the greatest undertakings are those in which the stock- 
holders have nothing to do with the management of 
affairs and are only drawing dividends. 

In all our large industrial affairs, stock companies, 
railroads, and trusts, the whole business is managed and 
carried on by a few paid officials who might just as well 
be paid by the community, the state, or the nation (as 
the case may be) to carry on the enterprise in the inter- 



GETTING ON THE BAND WAGON 171 

ests of the people, as to be paid by a few wealthy men 
to carry it on for their profit. 

This, carried out to its logical conclusion, involves a 
complete change in the system of government. 

The present government is based upon private prop- 
erty. It is necessarily oppressive. Its vital function is the 
protection of the owning and ruling class. 

When productive capital becomes collective property, 
government will necessarily become purely administrat- 
ive. It will cease to be unjust and oppressive. And our 
laws will be few and they will be simple. 

Social-Democracy will be the first real democracy that 
has ever existed. Political equality, imder the present 
system, is a snare and delusion. The wage worker who 
depends upon an employer for the opportunity to work 
and support his family, is not on terms of political equal- 
ity with his master. 

Political liberty and economic despotism are incom- 
patible. 

The Social-Democratic party proposes to establish in- 
dustrial democracy. We want to convert the present 
plutocratic republic into a genuine democracy. 

We want it especially understood that the Social-Dem- 
ocracy proposes to increase and not diminish the produc- 
tion of wealth. 

We propose to secure private property to the over- 
whelming mass of people who, under the present system, 
have none. Capital only is to be owned in common. In- 
stead of countless capitalists, constantly at war with each 
other, there will be only one capitalist and that will be 
the people. Production will be carried on for use and 
not for profit 



172 berger's broadsides 

This is the end and aim of the Social-Democratic 
party. 

And the usual argument in defense of the present 
vicious system is not that it is right, but that it is here, 
and must stay, whether we like it or not. Now, we So- 
cial-Democrats deny this. 

We Social-Democrats believe that in a civilized coun- 
try the question is not what is but what ought to be. If 
you can prove that a thing is good, let it stay. But if one 
cannot prove that it is good, he cannot hide behind the 
assertion that it is here and must remain. We believe 
that the American people are great enough and strong 
enough to get rid of anything they do not want. 

The capitalist system did not always exist. It followed 
the feudal system. 

The capitalist has done some good in this world. The 
capitalist system was useful. 

The capitalist system was a step in the evolution to 
freedom, but only a step. It has outlived its usefulness 
and therefore it should pass away. And what is more, 
it zvill pass away. 

The contention that the Social-Democrats as yet have 
not the majority is foolish. Every great party had a be- 
ginning once and was founded by a very small minority 
indeed. 

The Social-Democratic party is growing fast. But the 
man voting for a principle never throws his vote away. 
We say : Better vote for what you want, even if you do 
not get it, than vote for what you don't want and get it. 

The phrase of "getting on the band wagon" is a stupid 
phrase. Who is on the ''band wagon?'' Not the average 
voter. The capitalist politician and office seeker are on 
the "band wagon." 



GETTING ON THE BAND WAGON 173 

And why should we wait for the beginning until the 
majority of the votes are with us? The majority is 
always indolent and often ignorant. We cannot expect 
them to be anything else with their present social sur- 
roundings. They never have brought about conscienti- 
ously and deliberately any great social change. They 
have always permitted an energetic minority to prepare 
the way and then they have always gone with that pro- 
gressive minority when the fact itself was to be accom- 
plished. 

In Milwaukee we may gain the majority next April. A 
great deal may be accomplished in a city for the citizens 
of that city — although we cannot accomplish everything 
or anything near the whole program. We must wait for 
this until we have the state and the nation. 

In the state and the nation our objective point for the 
next year or two must be : a respectable minority. One 
respected as to numbers ; respected as representing the 
most advanced intelligence; and respected as containing 
the sincere and energetic representatives of the prole- 
triat which must do the bulk of the fighting in the new 
world. 

Given such a Social-Democratic minority in congress 
and in the legislatures of every state within the next few 
years, — the future of this country will be safe. 



174 berger's broadsides 



A Few Plain Pointers for Plain 

Working People — By a 

Plain Man. 

Written March 6, 1906. 

WHAT is the question for you, Mr. Workingman? 

For you the question is always the same. 

The working part of the population — the very part that 
does all the hard labor — is now damned to a hell without 
hope or likelihood of redemption. They are doomed to 
a life of suffering, of misery, of ignorance, and of con- 
stant hardship. They live poorly from day to day, are 
badly fed, badly dressed and badly housed. And what is 
worse, they are always in danger of losing their measly 
little jobs. And such trouble in a short time may turn 
the well-meaning workman into a good-for-nothing 
tramp, his wife and daughters into miserable creatures 
of lust, and his sons into thieves. 

The Protection of a Jail. 

And while the laws protect property and morals, capi- 
talists and murderers, they do not protect the man in 
need of work. He finds himself confronted with the 
alternative of taking "charity" or starving. 

If he wants protection, he must commit a crime. He 
must steal, rob, or become a common drunkard. Then 



A FEW PLAIN POINTERS BY A PLAIN MAN 175 

he IS "protected" by the law. He is sent to jail and the 
so-called ''house of correction." 

Now that is the condition as far as you are concerned. 

Nor is this all. 

Children also Doomed. 

By the mere fact that they are the children of a 
laborer, your children are as a rule condemned to the 
same fate as their parents. Unless they are saved by a 
streak of good luck, they are also doomed to become 
laborers. 

For no matter how talented these children may be, 
they get no training or education or proper care, since 
the parents, partly from ignorance, partly from poverty, 
cannot give it. They are sent to work while still very 
young, for they must help sustain the family, or starve 
with it. Their suffering begins when they are mere 
babes, in fact even before they are born. 

How to change these conditions ought to be the main 
question for you, Mr. Workman. 

Not Christian Charity, 

And this ought not to be so very hard. 

For if we look closer, there are all the elements at 
hand to make a comparative heaven out of this hell. 
There are all the things that laborers need in all coun- 
tries and in plenty. Especially is this so in America. 
There are plenty of all good things, for the laborers have 
produced them. And if there should not be enough, they 
would produce more, if permitted to do so. 

Why don't they doit? 

Because the laborers under the present conditions can- 
not employ themselves, but are dependent on the will and 
convenience of some factory owner. And not for love, 



176 berger's broadsides 

nor for Christian charity, does the owner of the factory 
give the laborers employment. He does so to invest 
capital and to make a profit. 

The workingman's labor has become a mere ware in 
the market, and as such his labor (that is, himself) is 
subject to the regular conditions of supply and demand. 
He and his labor are now subject also to competition. 

Worse Off Than the Slave. 

The capitalist or employer cares to buy the laborer's 
time only when he is young, strong and healthy. When 
he is sick, or when he gets old, the employer has no use 
for him. 

And because of this we see that our so-called free 
worker is actually worse off than the blacks were under 
slavery before the war. The black was ''property" and 
represented about $i,ooo of value which his master 
owned. Therefore the master took good care of him. 
He was anxious to have his '^nigger" in good condition 
as long as possible. 

It is of course different with the white slaves. They 
are free to starve. 

What Can You Do? 

With a system like this, it is only natural that the rich 
should become richer, and the poor poorer. 

And another thing. The strength on the capitalist side 
IS so great and the capacity for resistance on the side 
of the workmen so insignificant, that there is actually no 
freedom of contract. The monoply of tools has made 
the employers a class of autocrats and the laborers a class 
of dependents — of hirelings. The laborer is simply a 
hired appendage to the machine. The machine has be- 
come the main thing — the only thing. The living appen- 



A FEW PLAIN POINTERS BY A PLAIN MAN 177 

dage, the laborer, can be gotten without much trouble 
or cost. 

It is a paltry evasion of our capitalists to say that the 
workers are free to accept or to refuse the terms of their 
employers. The laborers have to consent. If they refuse 
the terms, there are plenty of others hungry, starved and 
desperate, ready to take their places. 

He Is in the Same Boat, 

But wage workers are by no means the only sufferers. 
The small employers, the small merchants are also feel- 
ing the sting of an unequal competition. For every one 
of these men of business lives at war with all his breth- 
ren. The hand of the one is against the other, and no 
foe is more terrible than the man who is running a neck 
to neck race with him every day. 

Therefore, in the factory as well as in the store, the 
profits must be cut constantly and the sales must be 
always enlarged. The latest improvements, the best 
labor-saving machinery must be used and as little wages 
must be paid as possible. The race is for life and death 
and "the devil gets the hindmost." 

The great capitalist triumphs, the small capitalist be- 
comes a clerk, a politician, a traveling agent, a saloon- 
keeper, a lawyer, or a parasite of one kind or another — 
sometimes even a wage earner. 

Thus the middle class disappears little by little. 

The final outcome so far is the trust and the mammoth 
department store. 

We Pay For It. 

Private ownership being nowadays a failure in the 
entire industrial system, it is a double failure in the 
matter of public service monopolies. These by iheir very 
nature ought to be carried on by the state or by the 



178 berger's broadsides 

municipality. For $9,000,000,000 worth of shares now in 
existence, the original investors certainly paid not more 
than $865,000,000, or ten per cent of their face value 
and probably less. Without redress or possible remedy 
under present laws, the American people are paying in- 
terest and dividends annually on a capital stock amount- 
ing to billions of dollars which never had real existence. 

What Is Coming f 

Workingmen, think deeply on these matters. Things 
cannot go on like this indefinitely. White men will not 
always stand it. We are by our present circumstances 
and conditions creating a race of people in our midst, 
compared with whom the Vandals of the Fourth Century 
were a humane race. Within a short time we shall have 
two nations in this country, both of native growth. One 
will be very large in number, semi-civilized, half-starved 
and degenerated through misery. The other will be small 
in number, over-fed, over-civilized, and degenerated 
through luxury. 

What will be the outcome? Some day there will be a 
volcanic eruption. The millions of the starved workmen 
will turn against the few overfed capitalists and their 
minions. 

A fearful retribution will be enacted on the capitalistic 
class as a class. The innocent will sufifer with the guilty. 

Such a revolution would even cause a temporary retro- 
gression of civilization and throw humanity back into 
semi-barbarism. Let us take warning from history. 

Meaning of Social-Democracy. 
Therr is but one deliverance from the rule of the 
people by capital — and that is the rule of the capital by 
the people. If much of what has been considered private 



A FEW PLAIN POINTERS BY A PLAIN MAN 179 

property is to be absorbed in great monopolistic owner- 
ship, as seems to be the inevitable outcome of the com- 
petitive struggle, then the people should become the 
monopolists. 

The only hope for the people for either industrial or 
political freedom lies in their taking ''lawful'' possession 
of the machinery and the forces of production and estab- 
lishing the co-operative commonwealth. And this is called 
Socialism. 

Must Grow from Bottom Up, 

Now a municipal campaign is a very small and insig- 
nificant part of the grand social and economic revolution, 
which we intend to accomplish. 

Yet municipal Socialism is very important. There can 
be no doubt that the Social-Democrats will carry cities 
and towns before they carry states, or before they carry 
a national election. Like everything else that is growing. 
Socialism must grow from the bottom up. 

There is one other great question to be considered, 
especially in this country. 

Must Fight ''Graft/' 

Socialism can never take deep root in a commonwealth 
that is absolutely corrupt. A Social-Democracy can never 
be established in a nation that is thoroughly rotten. More 
than any other citizens, more than any other political 
party, the Social-Democrats are interested in unearthing 
corruption, weeding out grafters and fighting boodlers. 

Although the boodlers are the natural product of the 
capitalistic system, of the terrific competitive struggle 
and of modern business principles, the boodlers more 
than any other agency poison the minds of the people. 
And regardless of party affiliation, the boodlers and 



180 berger's broadsides 

grafters concentrate their entire strength against the 
Social-Democratic party. 

We must therefore put down the boodlers and graft- 
ers in order to make Socialism possible. 

Business Men and Graft. 

I do not wish to be misunderstood. We are not simply 
attacking David S. Rose, who is an arch-grafter, or any 
Democrats and RepubHcans personally as "bad men." 
No intelligent man longer believes in the panacea for 
social ills that used to be offered, namely, the elevation 
of so-called ''good men" to office. 

And right here let me say a few words about ''busi- 
ness" and business men. 

If there is a fetish in this country today, it is the word 
"business." The business man is very often by necessity 
a grafter and "boodle" is simply business applied to 
politics. 

The business world has degenerated. Therefore we 
Socialists warn the voters not to be caught by the cur- 
rent drivel about "business methods" and "business prin- 
ciples." A government is not a personal contrivance like 
a business. It should bring the greatest good to all re- 
gardless of profit. 

Workmen Compelled to Be Honest. 

What Milwaukee and other large cities need most just 
now is workingmen's administrations. 

Only the workingman is being taught by all agencies 
to be honest. 

His employer teaches him to be honest. If he is not, 
he is discharged. His foreman teaches him to be honest ; 
if he is not, he loses his job. His union teaches him to 
be honest, if he is not, if he becomes a scab he is liable 



A FEW PLAIN POINTERS BY A PLAIN MAN 181 

to get into sore trouble. His class interest teaches him 
to be honest, because he has nothing to gain and every- 
thing to lose by being dishonest. And outside of a few 
business agents or ''walking delegates" here and there, 
who get into touch with the contractors and politicians, 
and get spoiled thereby, the working class as a class is 
honest. 

They have the New Conscience. 

Moreover, their class interest compels them to com- 
bine, because only by combination can they resist com- 
bined capital. This class interest also awakens in them 
the sense of collective social responsibility. The capitalist 
class and the middle class do not have this because with 
them the motto is: Each man for himself and the devil 
take <the hindmost. 

Now with the working class the motto has been turned 
the other way: Everybody for himself means that the 
devil gets them all. We must hang together or we hang 
separately. 

Once more in the world a new conscience is being 
formed. It is not formed by our particular goodness, but 
is formed by iron necessity. 

Must Turn to Us. 

So in this city as in every other modern city the citi- 
zens without difference of political affiliation or religious 
creed, have to turn to us workingmen for honest govern- 
ment and clean administration. We do not make any 
special boast of our honesty. While with the capitalistic 
party honesty is the highest virtue demanded, with us it 
is the first and the least requisite of a Social-Democrat. 
A man must also possess a good many other things be- 
fore he is considered a good Social-Democrat. 

Meanwhile in the camp of the enemy, boodle, corrup- 



182 berger's broadsides 

tion and scandals are growing from year to year. If any 
capitalist party in this city should be victorious, things 
will no doubt be worse two years from now than today. 
Look backward in the history of Milwaukee for thirty 
years. Tell me of a single election when the opposition 
did not claim, and rightly claim, that the corruption had 
gotten worse. 

What Else Can You Do? 

Every honest man and woman who can think ought 
therefore to come to the following conclusion: 

The machinery and all progress in implements of pro- 
duction we cannot and do not want to destroy. Civiliza- 
tion must not go back to the middle ages or be reduced 
to barbarism. But as long as these implements of pro- 
duction — land, machinery, raw materials, railroads, tele- 
graphs, etc., remain private property, only comparatively 
few can be the sole owners and masters. 

Capitalism was a step in the evolution of freedom, 
but only a step. There can be no social freedom or com- 
plete justice, until there are no more hirelings in the 
world; until all become both the employers and the 
employed of society. This is our aim. And this is what 
we want to bring about gradually and peaceably. 

If you want to add one stone to the building up of a 
new system, where graft and grafters shall be unknown, 
— if you want to vote for yourself, and for the future 
of your children, then vote the Social-Democratic ticket 
and vote it straight 



IS THERE ANY OTHER WAY 183 



Is There Any Other Way? 

Written April 14, 1906. 

THIS WORLD is a veritable hell for the larger half 
of the population. Truly, they need salvation. They 
need it in this world. What, then, must we do to be 
saved ? 

And yet, if we look closer, there are all the elements at 
hand to make a comparative heaven out of this hell. 
Theve are all the things that laborers need, and in all 
countries. Especially is this true in America, where there 
are plenty of all good things for the laborers who have 
produced them. And if there should not be enough, they 
would produce more, if permitted to do so. 

* * Hi 

Right here we catch a glimpse of one of the cardinal 
points of the whole question — the question of all the 
misery in the world. 

The workmen would and could produce everything in 
plenty, but they cannot do so at will. They must wait 
for somebody else to permit them to do so, to give them 
work,for they do not own the tools or the raw materials. 

The tools (i. e. the machines) are expensive now-a- 
days, therefore they are under complete control of the 
capitalist class. And the tools of today also requiie a 
great amount of material, and to buy that requires capi- 



184 berger's broadsides 

tal, which is another reason why capital controls pro- 
duction. 

You see then that ''capitalism" is the wall which the 
devil has put up between the laborer and his product. 

But the machinery and all the progress in implements 
of production we cannot and do not want to destroy. 
Civilization does not want to go back to the middle ages 
or be reduced to barbarism. But as long as these imple- 
ments of production — land, machinery, raw materials, 
railroads, telegraphs, etc., remain private property, only 
comparatively few can be their sole masters. As long as 
such is the case they will naturally use this private 
ownership for their own private advantage. 

And capitalism is marching on. In 1901 when the ter- 
rible Theodore Roosevelt became president, the trusts 
controlled about nine biUions worth of property. Now 
they control twenty-nine billions, out of a total of ninety 
billions. 

He 5|e * 

Now, what are the people to do? Must progress stop? 
Are we to go back to feudalism and barbarism because 
the economic interests of the capitalist class dominate 
both of the old parties? Our progress, our production 
on a large scale, the mighty accumulation of capital 
makes monopoly a necessary condition. Monopoly is 
here, whether we wish it or not. 

The question, therefore, is only, shall it be a private 
or a public monopoly? 

The question is, do we wish to leave the products of 
this country in the control of a small number of irrespon- 
sible men, whose only interest is to exploit us up to the 
last limit of our endurance? 

Do v/e wish to leave to a small clique the monopoly 



IS THERE ANY OTHER WAY 185 

of all things which make life good and desirable? Do 
we wish to make them absolute masters of all the neces- 
sities of our lives ? 

Do we wish to let a small number of capitalists decide 
how much meat and how much bread we shall eat, how 
much we shall spend for coal and how much for oil, how 
nicely or how poorly we shall be clothed and housed — 
in brief, how well or how ill, how long or how short 
a time we shall live ? 

The same economic causes which developed capitalism 
are leading to Socialism, which will abolish both the 
capitalist class and the class of wage workers. And the 
active force in bringing about this new and higher order 
of society is the Social-Democratic party. 



We still have one way left to conquer these powerful 
economic lords. We still have the ballot and can avail 
ourselves of political power. Shall we use this power? 

The capitalist parties, the Republican as well as the 
Democratic, are both upholding the present system with 
its exploitation and its trust rule. The question is then: 
Shall we put the Social-Democratic party into power, 
which will take hold of the meat trust, the oil trust, the 
coal trust, and every other trust, and put them into the 
possession of the whole people and thus make all the 
people shareholders? 

If this is impossible, why is it possible for a compara- 
tively small clique — the trust owners — to have this con- 
trol ? These people as a rule do not know anything about 
the production and distribution of this country. They 
have no more to do with it than the man in the moon, 
outside of the fact that they now reap the benefits. Now 



186 berger's broadsides 

if that is possible for this small number of people, why 
should it not be possible for all the people? 

The Social-Democrats propose the change in the me- 
chanism of society, which has been made necessary by 
the invention and application of machinery, by the con- 
centration of wealth, and the formation of trusts. This 
change will not mean the "division of property,'' the 
plunder of the Haves for the benefit of the Have-nots. 
It will take place legally, for the majority of the people 
have a right to make the laws, and the new system will 
make it possible for everybody to live out his own life 
and to develop his personality, as long as he does not 
infringe upon the right of others. Is this Un-American? 

^ ^ H: 

Under a Social-Democratic system then, the workmen 
will get the full value of their labor and you will all get 
the benefit of the riches of this great country. We will 
settle the **bread and butter" question, the question of 
property which is underlying all the other social questions 
of the day. Is there any other solution for the question ? 

And is any other solution of this question a final solu- 
tion? 



ABOLISH parties; WHAT FOR 187 



Abolish Parties? What For? 

Written Januiary 23, 1909. 

THE GREAT OUTCRY of some "reformers" of the 
present day is that parties are corrupting our political 
life — particularly, that national party politics are cor- 
rupting our local politics. 

Acting on this theory, some of the reformers in the 
Milwaukee charter convention lay special stress upon the 
banishment of all parties from the ballot at municipal 
elections. They hope, thereby, to banish all evil and to 
elect so-called ''good men," simply because they are 
''good men." 

* * * 

However, one might ask, if parties are such an evil 
in local elections, why are they not an evil in state elec- 
tions? A state election is a local election on a larger 
scale. 

And why not also banish parties from national tickets ? 
A national election is a state election on a larger scale. 

* * * 

Moreover, we should like to know in what way 
the national party corrupts local politics in New York? 
Does the national Republican or the national Demo- 
cratic party corrupt pure, innocent Tammany Hall? And 
do the "gray wolves" in the Chicago common council 



188 berger's broadsides 

receive their impetus from Theodore Roosevelt or from 
William Jennings Bryan? 

And while I am not at all an admirer of the Demo- 
cratic party, still I do not believe that Bryan is in any 
way responsible for the doings of Mayor Rose and his 
city Democracy. 

If one looks a little closer at some of the men who are 
proposing to destroy all political parties, one is apt to 
find the following types : 

I. The average bourgeois ideologist, who is looking 

for some explanation of the political rottenness, and 

would under no circumstances charge it to ''business men 

I in politics" and to legal graft. Such an opinion might 

I interfere with the respect for himself, his best friends, 

I and for capitalism in general. 

( 2. The old exploiter, politician or lawyer, grown 

I wealthy by business graft, or legal graft, but who in his 

^ old age has retired from business and is trying to appear 

"good." And if he has often been defeated on some old 

party ticket because of the well-merited hatred of the 

voters, then he is apt to flatter himself that he would 

have had better chances if there were no parties. 

j{j ^ ^ 

As a matter of fact a democracy (the rule of the 
demos, the people) — or a republic {res publica, govern- 
ment by the people) is impossible without political par- 
ties. 
\ As long as we have democracy, and particularly, repre- 

sentative democracy, parties will be absolutely necessary 
for its expression. There will be either anarchy and 
crude factionalism or organized political parties. 



ABOLISH parties; wh^at for 189 

Men who politically organize around some issues and 
for the same class interest, will always form a party — no 
matter by what name it is called, or whether they call it 
a party or not. 

* * sK 

The "reformers" who are trying to smash parties be- 
cause they are corrupting political life, are acting in 
exactly the same way as the workmen of old, who wanted 
to smash the machines because they thought that the 
machines were responsible for their poverty. However, 
it is not the machine that keeps the workman poor, but it 
is the capitalist ownership of the machine. 

And in exactly the same way it is not parties that 
are to blame for the political rottenness of our public 
life, but it is the capitalist ownership of the ruling par- 
ties. 



Parties are necessary in our political life as machines 
are in our industrial life. 

Parties in the end are simply the political expression 
of econow)ic interests. 

It is therefore only natural that class interest must 
sooner or later prevail in all parties. And any effort to 
suppress this is stupid, reactionary and absolutely un- 
democratic. 

If the working class — or any other class, for that mat- 
ter — is not permitted to express its opinion and demands 
through parties, then these opinions and demands will 
be expressed through the bomb, the dagger, the pistol 
and finally through bloody revolution. 



190 berger's broadsides 

However, the majority report of the special committee 
of the charter convention of Milwaukee tries to provide 
for a bill to abolish parties altogether. 

All candidates who can scare up the signatures of two 
per cent of the voters on their petitions, are to be placed 
at random on the ballot — and all party names or desig- 
nations are to be eliminated. There is to be nothing on 
the ballot excepting the name of the person seeking the 
office. 

Now if this majority report is adopted it will eliminate 
all principles and ideas from municipal elections and con- 
centrate all attention upon the office seekers. 

Dave Rose's motto, 'This dying for principle is all 
rot,'' will then be embodied in the charter by his sup- 
posed enemies, the "reformers." Principle will be 
nothing — the person of the office-seeker will be every- 
thing. 

Every election would be a catch-as-catch-can affair. 
It would be the Eldorado for boodlers, grafters and 
crooks. It would be just the very condition any grasping 
corporation could wish for. 

* * jji 

And the office-seeker with the most money to spend — 
particularly the so-called ''good fellow," who knows how 
to spend it in the saloons to the best advantage, or who 
has friends who can do the trick for him — would be the 
winner. Or the men who can afford to advertise the 
most, or those backed up by the biggest newspapers, 
would have the best chances to win out. 

The next best chance would be for the man who be- 
longs to many secret societies or to many church socie- 



ABOLISH PARTIES ; WHAT FOR 191 

ties, where they distribute ballots, after the church serv- 
ice on the Sunday before election. 
* * ^ 

Now, I say all this, although I might also add that 
there is one tremendous factor in this city, a big organ- 
ization, which would also have a very good chance under 
that method, and that is the Social-Democratic party, 
simply on the strength of our organization. Only the 
new method would require a good deal more work. 

However, this method would demoralize all the other 
forces for good. It would undo a great deal of the work 
that our party, with the help of men who also possess 
the civic conscience, has accomplished heretofore. 

And it would infinitely increase the chances for cor- 
ruption. The corporations and grafters would have to 
deal with individuals only, instead of dealing with organ- 
izations. 

sfs ^ * 

For we must not forget that at the present day, no 
matter how rotten a party may be, it is to a certain 
extent responsible to the people who voted that ticket 
for the selection of its candidates. These candidates 
may be grafters and rascals. The party is beyond any 
doubt responsible for them to the people. Even Tam- 
many Hall in New York is responsible to a certain 
extent. All the Cook county Democracy, with its ''gray 
wolves'' and our city Democracy with its hyenas, is 
held responsible by the people. 

Abolish all parties and nobody would be responsible 
to the people. We should have absolute political anarchy. 

JJC ^ i{c 

Compared with these serious objections, it is of com- 
paratively smaller importance, that with nothing to guide 



192 berger's broadsides 

the voters in the wilderness of the long list of names on 
the ballot, this will result in focusing the attention of 
the people upon the half dozen men runnmg for mayor. 

No one will remember the long list of the other candi- 
dates for the other offices, unless he takes a day off to 
learn them by heart. And even if he did, it will be im- 
possible for the average voter to know their qualifica- 
tions. 

The selection of men for the other offices will there- 
fore be largely a matter of mere chance. 

ijc :j« ^ 

The so-called reformers have done many stupid things 
in Wisconsin. No wonder the state is in the hands of 
the ''epigones'' of the old Stalwarts — just as grafty, and 
not so crafty. We have Stephenson, Davidson and 
Bancroft instead of Spooner, Payne and Pfister, a miser- 
able come-down in every respect. And yet Robert M. 
La Follette is an able man and an honest man — but he 
cannot see far enough, nor look deep enough. 

And in making the charter for Milw^aukee the "re- 
formers" will make the worst botch of all — if we let 
them. 

But we will not let them. 



THE END OF THE ROOSEVELT EPISODE 193 



The End of the Roosevelt Episode. 

Written March 6, 1909. 

THEODORE ROOSEVELT, the man who has just 
vacated his office, will go down in history as the most 
sensational and most inconsistent president this republic 
has had so far. 

Theodore Roosevelt was the last great representative 
of the upper middle class in the presidential chair. He 
never studied political economy, and knows more about 
bears and deer than about Smith, Ricardo and Marx. 
But he is otherwise an educated man with good impulses 
— but intensely capitalistic by descent, environment and 
training. And he represents an economic stratum which 
is rapidly disappearing. 

* >K 5(s 

Of course he never analyzed his milieu. He is not 
capable of doing this. 

And having been brought up in the capitalistic sphere 
of thought — and being an aggressive and ''strenuous'' 
man besides — it was natural that he should make all the 
mistakes he did make — particularly in dealing with the 
trusts and the labor question. 

5k * * 

Theodore Roosevelt tried to do the impossible. He 
tried to perpetuate capitalism by reforming it. He tried 



194 berger's broadsides 

to make the trust magnates "good'' by telling them to 
behave themselves. 

Of course that was ridiculous. 

* * 5}C 

And he let Peabody do as he pleased in Colorado and 
declared the Western Miners guilty while their trial 
was on, yet they were afterwards pronounced *'not 
guilty'* by a jury. 

And these utterances — and his behavior towards the 
Western Miners in general — will form a lasting blot 
upon the history of his administration. 
* * * 

The Progressives of the senate were rudely handled 
by Theodore Roosevelt. He stepped on its corns with- 
out mercy. He has emphasized the presidency at the 
expense of congress. He contrived the Panama and San 
Domingo affairs. He stole the thunder from the Bryan- 
ites and wanted to compel representatives of railroad 
trusts and other monopolies to accept anti-trust laws. 

That was fatal to him. Even the majority of the 
Republicans voted against him. 

He leaves his office with the cordial hatred of all the 
dominant factors of the Republican party. 
^ ^ ^ 

As it was, Theodore Rooscveft was only an accident 
in the presidency. No one thought of nominating him 
for president in the Republican convention in Philadel- 
phia in 1900. 

That convention was a typical capitalistic convention 
— dominated by the late Mark A. Hanna — and it re- 
nominated William McKinley unanimously. The dele- 
gates did not have much to say anyway in that conven- 



THE END OF THE ROOSEVELT EPISODE 195 

tion. And the nomination of Theodore Roosevelt for 
vice-president was made for the double purpose of add- 
ing a popular "war-hero'' to the ticket and of finally 
disposing of Theodore Roosevelt. For it is an unwritten 
law that the nomination for vice-president means the 
political death of the nominee — unless the unexpected 
happens. 

* 5iS i{C 

But the unexpected did happen. McKinley was 
assassinated and Theodore Roosevelt — the man Thomas 
C. Piatt of New York wanted to dispose of by making 
him vice-president — ^became the president of the United 
States. 

The rest is well known. The outcome could not have 
been different. It was easy to foretell it, for anybody 
acquainted with the history of the Republican party. 
* * * 

And the history of the RepubHcan party furnishes 
many lessons of interest, upon which we may fitly dwell 
on this occasion. 

The growing hostility towards the institution of chat- 
tel slavery as existing in the South, where it was con- 
sidered perfectly lawful and constitutional, formed the 
bas'is for the foundation of the Republican party. 

The demand for its abolition appealed readily to all 
idealists. The constitutional bar against the abolition of 
slavery, instead of checking or awing the abolitionists, 
spurred them on to greater enthusiasm. 
^ Hf * 

Back of the idealists and their undaunted ardor, how- 
ever, were aligned powers and interests of a very mate- 
rial nature. 

Slavery as an economic institution had run its course 



196 berger's broadsides 

and grown out of date. It was not adapted to modern 
production. It had become more and more expensive 
and less productive from year to year. With slave labor 
a wholesale production of raw materials was the only 
thing possible. These raw materials of the southern slave 
states were exchanged for the manufactured products of 
the North, in particular for those of the New England 
states. 

However, the South discovered that it did not derive 
through this exchange the advantages it sought. An 
exchange trade with Europe, especially with England, 
offered greater advantages for the Southern slave own- 
ers. 

Under the influence of this material fact there arose 
in the South a strong movement in favor of free trade. 

* * Hs 

The manufacturers in the North clearly recognized the 
danger which threatened them through the loss of their 
Southern market. They were resolved not to lose this 
market at any cost. 

The Northern manufacturers availed themselves with 
rare skill and cleverness of the idealistic Abolitionist 
movement, and the patriotic sentiment for the preserva- 
tion of the Union, to further their own purposes. 

The North finally succeeded in defeating, by force of 

arms, the attempted secession of the South. In this, 

the newly organized Republican party served them in 

good stead. 

* * * 

The evolution through which the Republican party has 
passed in the course of time is not essentially different 
from the development of other bourgeois parties, pro- 



THE END OF THE ROOSEVELT EPISODE 197 

claiming high-sounding phrases, but founded on a mate- 
rial basis. 

The apparently progressive parties in England, France 
and Germany have all undergone the same metamor- 
phosis as our Republican party. 

The ideal demands for liberty originally set forth by 
those parties have entirely disappeared after having 
served to gain the coveted political power for the bour- 
geoisie. * * ^ 

In the ranks of the Republican party, this change kept 
pace with the rapidity which marked the development of 
our economic conditions. A few of the original found- 
ers of that party are still living, and can cast a backward 
glance upon the work they helped to create. 

A retrospective review of the last half century must 
surely make them smile at their former idealism. 

J}c * * 

As early as 1876, this victorious party in the struggle 
for the human rights it so pompously proclaimed, was so 
dominated by lust for power that it considered it quite 
the proper thing to gain control of the government by 
means of election frauds. And the Republican party 
even stood ready to defend its attitude, if necessary, by 
force of arms. 

The Republican party today is the patron saint of the 
trusts and all other capitalistic organizations. 
^ ^ ^ 

It stands before the American people today as the 
bulwark of exploitation and monopolies. The buying 
of a seat in the United States senate by spending a 
quarter of a million dollars — as in the case of Uncle Ike 
Stephenson — ^is the visible embodiment of a ^'popular 
government, as even many "reform" Republicans under- 
stand it, 



198 berger's broadsides 

The president's chair will be occupied by William H. 
Taft, "Injunction BilF' — the guardian-angel and defender 
of the capitalistic state, the man who longs for the power 
to summarily dispatch all labor agitators to prison. 

* * * 

With the ascendancy of William H. Taft, the Roose- 
velt episode is closed. 

Within less than a year the administration will quietly 
slide back into the sluggish and quiet waters of the Mc- 
Kinley channel of capitalism. 

Taft will pride himself on emphasizing this difference 
between his administration and that of President Roose- 
velt. Capitalism, including the "evil-doers of immense 
wealth," will have full sway. 

Taft will make less enemies in his own party — but at 
the same time Socialist sentiment and Socialist organiza- 
tion will grow under his adminstration as they never 
grew before. 



For Roosevelt has left an inheritance that cannot be 
undone, overlooked or abolished. 

All his attacks upon the rich malefactors have left 
a mark upon the minds of all the people. His con- 
tinuous blowing of trumpets against "predatory wealth" 
has aroused even the most sleepy among the working 
class, the professional class and the lower middle class. 

They are still rubbing their eyes, but they are begin- 
ning to think, and nobody can stay that process. 

Hi Hi * 

These are the fruits which the Republican party has 



NATION RULED BY FEW CORPORATION LAWYERS 199 

naturally begotten. The bourgeoisie has reached the 
end of its development. 

In the course of its development it has produced the 
germs of its own destruction — the proletariat. 

This child of the bourgeoisie is rapidly gaining in 
strength and will grow until it is old and strong enough 
to take possession of the inheritance left by its aging 
mother. 

The history of the Republican party is one of the 
infallible proofs of the correctness of the materialistic 
view of history as held by modern Social-Democrats. 



This Nation is Ruled by a Few 
Corporation Lawyers. 

Written May 8, 1908. 

There was a tendency in Congress to induce certain 
railroads in Pennsylvania to dispose of their holdings 
in hard coal lands, or at least to compel them to treat 
fairly the few remaining owners of anthracite coal mines 
who depend on the good will of these railroads. 

Accordingly the "trust-busting" Hepburn act contained 
a clause which makes it unlawful 

**for any railroad company to transport from any 
state to any other state or to any foreign country 
any article or commodity, other than timber, manu- 
factured, mined, or produced by it, or under its 



200 berger's broadsides 

authority, or which it may own in whole or in part, 
or in which it may have any interest, direct or in- 
direct, except such articles or commodities as may 
be necessary and intended for its use in the con- 
duct of its business as a common carrier." 



Of course, the railroads appealed to their patron saints 
in Washington, D. C. 

And what did the Supreme Court do? Declare the 
law "unconstitutional" in order to favor the railroads, 
as that Supreme court has often done before in other 
cases, and as it was confidently expected by the rail- 
roads it would do this time^^ 

Not at all. 

* * * 

The Supreme Court simply went a step further. 

The judges declared that this law is constitutional. 
But that it does not mean what it says on the face of it, 
and what its originators declared that it should mean. 
No, it is to mean something entirely different. 

It is to mean that the railroads cannot own and operate 
coal mines, but that they can own stock in companies 
which own and operate coal mines. 

Now, most of the railroads do not operate the mines 
now. They simply own the stock in the subsidiary com- 
panies which own and operate the coal mines. And the 
few remaining railroads as, for instance, the Delaware 
& Lackawanna, will obey the mandates of the Supreme 
Court at once and — form the subsidiary companies and 
own their stock. 

Is it not laughable ? 



NATION RULED BY FEW CORPORATION LAWYERS 201 

Of course, we care little for this special occasion. 

Trust-busting, under the present system, is nonsense, 
and the lawmakers in Washington, D. C, should have 
brains enough to understand that and honesty enough 
to admit it. 

What interests us most in this case is again the arro- 
gance and absolute shamelessness of the Supreme Court 
of the United States. 

We are, of course, quite accustomed to the idea that 
a large portion of the time of our courts, from the lowest 
to the highest, and both national and state, is now occu- 
pied in determining whether the representatives of the 
people have the right to make laws or not. This is 
a power no court, and no Supreme Court, of any nation 
ever had, or ever will have. But it is a power which 
budding capitalism in America reserved for itself about 
a hundred years ago and still retains — since the days of 
that great shyster lawyer, John Marshall. 

However, it is a new thing, even in this country, for 
a Supreme Court to tell a legislative body that the law 
is constitutional, but that it is to mean something entirely 
different from its wording, and something entirely dif- 
ferent from what Congress intended it to mean. 



And the queer part of all this is that this power of 
the Supreme Court of the United States is not even con- 
stitutional. 

In the convention of 1787, when the constitution of 
the United States was framed, a proposition was made 
that judges should pass upon the constitutionality of the 
acts of Congress. 



202 berger's broadsides 

This was defeated June 5, receiving the vote of only 
two states. 

It was renewed June 6, and again July 21, and finally, 
for the fourth time, it was urged on the 15th of August. 
But, although it had the powerful support of Madison 
and Wilson, at no time did it receive the votes of more 
than three states. 

♦ ♦ ♦ 

Prior to that convention, the courts of four states — 
New Jersey, Rhode Island, Virginia and North Carolina 
— ^had expressed an opinion that they could hold the acts 
of their respective legislatures as unconstitutional. 

It was a doctrine never held before — nor in any other 
country since. It met with strong disapproval right at 
the beginning. In Rhode Island a movement to oust the 
offending judges was only stopped on the suggestion 
that they should be dropped by the next legislature, 
which was done. 

* * * 

These matters were then recent and before that con- 
vention. 

Madison and Wilson — living at a time when govern- 
ment by the people was a new experiment, of which 
property-holders were very much afraid — favored the 
new doctrine as a check upon legislation to be operated 
only by lawyers. 

; And they attempted to get it into the constitution in 
its least objectionable shape — as a judicial examination 
and veto before the final passage of the bill. 

But even in this diluted form, and although presented 
four times by these two very influential members, the 
suggestion at no time received the votes of more than 
one-fourth of the states in that convention. 



NATION RULED BY FEW CORPORATION LAWYERS 203 

The subsequent action of the Supreme Court in assum- 
ing the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitu- 
tional, is without a line in the constitution to authorize it. 

The Supreme Court of the United States usurped — ^yea, 
practically stole, that power — first, with the consent of 
the slave barons, who had occasion to hide behind it, and 
afterwards with the help of the plutocrats, who fully 
realize its value. 

Just think it over for a moment. 

Nine corporation lawyers, appointed for life, have the 
power to veto or change, according to their own sweet 
pleasure, the laws enacted by Congress — and they are 
responsible to nobody, not even to themselves. 

Of these nine, five form a majority, and can decide 
anything. 

And there you have it; five crooked corporation law- 
yers — usually the most crooked of their craft — can nega- 
tive the will of one hundred millions of intelligent people. 

All our plutocrats need do, therefore, is to see to it 
that they own five of these judges. And is it necessary 
to prove that plutocracy owns them? 

;JC 5jS JJC 

Such power as our judges have, does not exist, and 
never has existed, in any other country. 

Judges have never exercised such power in England, 
where there is no written constitution. In England the 
will of the people, when expressed through their repre- 
sentatives in parliament, is final. 

And the judges surely do not have such power in 
France, Germany, Austria, Denmark, or any other coun- 
try where there is a written constitution. 



204 berger's broadsides 

And why should anyone imagine that our United 
States judges are more wise, more honest, and more 
virtuous than other politicians? 

These judges are not even elected by the people. They 
are usually politicians who have been defeated by the 
people. 

They are selected by the big contributors to the cam- 
paign — by the great corporations and the railroads. 

They are not picked out on account of their progres- 
siveness or learning, but for their loyalty to the 'Tnter- 
ests.'' 

They are selected by influences naturally antagonistic 
to the working classes and the plain people. 
* * * 

Why should they be more honest? 

To these judges honesty means loyally to the big 
thieves who selected them and gave them a soft berth 
for life. 

And why should not the people have a word to say 
about their election? 

If the people are to be trusted to select the executive 
and the legislature, they are also fit to select the judges. 

Elect the federal judges every time and at the same 
time when you elect the president; recall any rotten 
judges who forfeit popular confidence, and you will have 
a different class of judges. 

And take away the right from all of them to pass upon 
the power of the legislative bodies to make this or the 
other law — a right which was invented in hell by Mam- 
mon. 

3|e * * 

As a check upon the legislative bodies use the Initiative 
and the Referendum. This is the only way to establish 



AN ARMED PEOPLE IS ALW6VYS A FREE PEOPLE 205 

a Democracy and to avoid the most fearful revolution 
the world has ever seen. 



An Armed People is Always a 
Free People. 

Written August 14, 1909. 

CAPITALIST PAPERS all over the country have 
attacked me with great bitterness, because of my article 
two weeks ago asking Socialists and workingmen in 
general to prepare to fight for freedom and to be ready 
to back up their ballots with bullets, if necessary. 

The usual howl of ^'anarchist" was raised by men who 
know no more about economic and political terms than a 
donkey knows of Latin grammar. 

* jK 5k 

What I wrote m that article I had written in this 
paper before. I have also said it in numerous conven- 
tions of the American Federation of Labor. 

And I have always said it in the interest of peace, 
justice and order, and because I want to make peaceable 
progress possible. 

I repeat : A revolution can never be "made" ; neither 
by one man, even if he were the most powerful genius, 
nor by a few thousand men, even if they were ever so 
fanatical. 

We have examples of this in history. 

* JH 5(S 

Although the Catholic church in the Thirteenth and 
Fourteenth centuries was in pressing need of a "reform 



206 berger's broadsides 

oi head and members/' as the holy church councils so 
often complained, yet the talented Cola Rienzi, after a 
brief season of triumph, was burned in Rome at the 
stake in the public market-place, amid the rejoicings of 
the people. 

Although the French especially were quite convinced 
of the necessity of a reformation, it was just in France 
that the Albigenses were persecuted and rooted out with 
bloody severity. 

So it was in other countries. 

But when the time was ripe, there arose a rough and 
burly monk, a man who was neither a statesman nor 
a scholar. And this reckless genius, Martin Luther, 
carried through successfully what many other and some 
greater men before him had attempted in vain. 

The minds of men had been prepared for the revolu- 
tion. 



So it is with every revolution. It is always dependent 
upon the development of conditions. The revolution 
is only the seal on a preceding evolution in men's minds. 

And it may require many so-called "revolutions'' to 
carry out successfully one single but thorough reform. 

* * * 

in my opinion, those who would advise street riots and 
insurrections would be guilty of a crime against the 
laboring class, especially in view of the perfection of 
modern instruments of murder and the helpless condi- 
tion of the workers. 

An appeal to arms without having any arms is more 
than foolish — it is criminal. 

As anybody who is at all acquainted with me knows, 



AN ARMED PEOPLE IS ALWfAYS Jf FREE PEOPLE 207 

I am most decidedly in favor of the ballot and a propa- 
ganda of education. 

We must have a great many ballots and a great deal 
of education. 

However, we must not forget that all nations which 
have bettered existing conditions have been combatants; 
that is, they have been armed. 

Such was decidedly the case in the time of the Refor- 
mation and during the English revolution. 

In France, indeed, the people were poorly armed at 
first, till they plundered the state arsenal on the morning 
of July 14, 1789, and took 28,000 guns and cartridges. 
But, in the first place, the French aristocracy was per- 
fectly rotten and no longer capable of resistance, and 
secondly, the regular French troops fraternized with the 
people from the very beginning of the revolution. 
H< ^ * 

Moreover, history teaches us that an armed people 
has always been a free people. There has never been 
a plainer example of this than the case of the Boers in 
South Africa. 

Tyrants and usurpers, therefore, have always taken 
care to disarm the people. And the English did the same 
thing in South Africa in subduing what was left of the 
30,000 peaceable Dutch farmers — a little armed nation 
that had learned how to shoot straight. 

Whenever one nation or one class comes under the 
yoke of another, the conquered nation or conquered 
class is always disarmed, and rendered non-combatant. 

* 5jS 5jS 

The founders of our nation well understood and con- 
sidered all this, and therefore inserted the following 
clause in the constitution of the United States: 



208 berger's broadsides 

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the secur- 
ity of a free state, the right of the people to keep and 
bear arms shall not be infringed/' — ^Amendment II, 
Article II. 

This clause was placed in the constitution expressly 
for the purpose of giving the people an opportunity to 
defend their freedom. 



In the debate upon this clause it was insisted that 
such a right must be reserved for the people to guard 
them eventually against usurpers in our country. 

It goes without saying that the founders of this re- 
public never even dreamed of such a militia as ours is 
today — the arming of fools and fops to hold in check the 
great mass of people for the benefit of a few money- 
bags. 

In those days (1783-89) there was no more a pluto- 
cracy than a proletariat in this country. Conditions 
were then entirely different. 

* >|s * 

But, although the fathers of our republic took such 
pains to create a ^'nation in arms," yet today there is 
scarcely any other folk in the world (except probably 
the Chinese or Russians) so completely disarmed, so 
totally without weapons, as the mass of the American 
workmen. 

In Germany and France almost every man is a soldier, 
almost every man is thus at one time of his life an 
armed man. 

This imprints a certain stamp on the people. 

However severely militarism should be condemned, 
it has at least this one good side — that besides discipline 



AN ARAIED PEOPLE IS ALWAYS A FREE PEOPLE 209 

it gives the man a certain self-confidence and teaches 
him the use of a gun. 

ij! * >ic 

To those who are afraid to trust the people with fire- 
arms, the example of Switzerland proves most clearly 
that a general arming of the people would by no means 
result in a '^revolution." 

In Switzerland every citizen is a soldier and owns his 
own weapon and keeps it at home. The government 
teaches the people the use of arms for reasons of state. 

And although the Swiss workingmen are by no means 
better situated materially than their American brothers, 
and although the Swiss bourgeoisie sometimes carries 
on regular baiting against labor agitators, we hear 
nothing of revolutions or dangerous insurrections in 
Switzerland. 

There is a great deal less rioting in Switzerland than 
either in America or in Russia, where the people are 
totally disarmed. 

* Jjc * 

On the contrary, if the social question is settled in any 
country without spilling a drop of blood, that country 
will be Switzerland. 

* jH >K 

There can be no question that the general disarming 
of our people has contributed very considerably to their 
enslavement. 

We are obliged to fear our ''government far more 
than the Montenegrins, Arabs and other half-barbarous 
races fear theirs. 

And yet, in accordance with progress, our higher civ- 
ilization, our higher culture, ought to make us only so 
much the freer. 



210 berger's broadsides 

Our ruling class, indeed, knows better how to value 
the advantage of arms. 

Not only are barracks erected in the neighborhood 
of all the large cities, not only is the militia limited to 
a comparatively few regiments, recruited from the *'bet- 
ter'' class, instead of arming all the people, as in Swit- 
zerland — but even in church and school the middle class 
and their children are taught to hate and abhor the so- 
called "dangerous classes/' 

This is called teaching ''patriotism." 

* 5{« * 

No, we surely want no Russian kind of revolution. 
Nor do we want a repetition of the French revolution if 
it can possibly be avoided. 

* * Hi 

However, human nature is so constituted that in the 
struggle for existence — in the class struggle — people 
only respect what they fear. This law holds just as 
good today as it did a thousand years ago. 

The Swiss workingmen are respected by the Swiss 
capitalist class because they are combatants besides hav- 
ing the ballot. 

The American workingmen are despised and scorned, 
although having the ballot, because they are non-com- 
batants. 

Therefore, in the interest of peace and harmony — in 

the interest of peaceable progress— in the interest of the 

future greatness of this nation — I want to see adopted the 

Swiss system or any other orderly method of a general 

arming of the people. 

^ H« * 

If that is not done we shall have the French and Rus- 



IF THIS BE TREASON MAKE THE MOST OF IT 211 

sian kind of revolution. Then I have great fears for 
our civilization. 

It may soon come to an untimely end, either by the 
action of the plutocracy or through an ochlocracy (mob 
rule). 

Let us learn from history. 



If This Be Treason, Make the 
Most of It. 

Written August 14, 1909. 

There are now about half a million workingmen idle 
all the year round — even during so-called ''good times'' 
— although willing to work and depending on work for 
support of their families. 

There are now over three million men idle part of 
the year, during periods extending from six weeks to 
eight months. The number of the unemployed reaches 
four millions during ''hard times." 

Talk about patriotism. About the "Stars and Stripes/' 

What is left the poor tramp but the "Stars and 
Stripes?" The stars above him when he camps in the 
open air in summer and the "stripes" upon him when 
he is sent to jail in winter. 

jji ^ j{« 

Nor is this all. 

During the past thirteen years the prices of all the 
necessaries of life have gone up, until the cost of living 
is twice what it was thirteen years ago. 

Our standard of living has now gone down to that of 



212 berger's broadsides 

the Western European workingman — and in some re- 
spects it is lower, because our American proletarian 
lacks the legal protection of the French, English or Ger- 
man workingman. 

iK ijt * 

But they tell us that this is the necessary effect of 
machinery. That machinery ''saves labor." 

But we ask: Did genius brood over books and draw- 
ings, work about models and laboratories, to lift the 
burden from the laborer's back and give the toiler time 
for mental and domestic pleasures? 

Or did the genius of humanity intend that by his 
achievements millions of human beings shall be retired 
to their miserable abodes and die there of hunger and 
want ? 



We understand that under the present economic sys- 
tem this can not be changed. That the workingman 
cannot get the full value of his product because the em- 
ployer (the capitalist) must nowadays make a profit on 
the work of his laborers. 

That if the capitalist, the owner of the m.achinery and 
the raw material, does not see any profit in engaging 
workingmen for the purpose of producing, he will not 
produce. 

That the capitalist's selfishness is excusable and neces- 
sary, 

* * * 

However, if the spirit of selfishness is to predominate 
and control the entire human race — so are we selfish. 

And since we cannot help ourselves individually, since 
the means of production are so concentrated now that 



IF THIS BE TREASON — MAKE THE MOST OF IT 213 

only in a collective form can they be returned to us, oitr 
selfishness has taken a collective form. 

And the progress of the age and the existence of 
civilization depends upon the success of our selfishness, 

jfj >js Hs 

We must help all in order to help one. That is our 
aim. That is the aim of SociaHsm. 

And if we cannot get all of it at once, we want to get 
as much of it now as we possibly can. 

sjs * * 

We Socialists protest against deifying cash and de- 
monizing man. 

We fight against exalting the products of labor and 
degrading the laborer. We insist that a brave, indust- 
rious man, factory worker or farmer, who lives and 
loves, is worth infinitely more than a pile of gold or 
a package of greenbacks. 

We demand that even today in every industry requir- 
ing dead capital and living work — cash and labor — the 
man should be considered the more important of the 

two, 

* * * 

We resent refined brutality that excuses enforced idle- 
ness and its concomitant evils — misery, starvation and 
shame — ^by arguing that the "price of labor is to be 
regulated by the law of supply and demand." 

If labor is to be regulated by the law of supply and 
demand, then we, the producers, zvant to have control 
of the supply and demand. 

And there is only one way to do it — i, e,, by public 
ownership. 

He * * 

There are two ways of efifecting great social changes 



214 berger's broadsides 

in a republic — the ballot and the bullet. If our people 
are not zcise — if they are otherwise — then we may have 
use for both of them. 

But no one but a fool will consider the latter way 
until the former has been used with its full effect. 

And I believe the ballot has great efficiency. I believe 
that w^hile the ballot itself may not make us free, it 
will put into our hands the power of achieving our 
fieedom. 

^ ^ ^ 

For that purpose the ballot must be used in the right 
way. If you want democratic Socialism you must have 
a Social-Democratic party. None of the capitalist par- 
ties can help us. 

Capitalism has no special politics. It simply wants 
to perpetuate its power. Look at our national congress 
in Washington. 

Thousands of daily and weekly papers identify capi- 
talism with patriotism and Socialism with disorder. 

''Money is no object'' if it will secure the interest of 
capitalism. A Democratic senator is as good as a Re- 
publican. 

* Hi * 

It is the business of all these politicians and of all 
the editors to warn the people against Socialism, and 
to promise them ''protection" or "free trade'' or "pros- 
perity" and a "full dinner pail," or to guarantee the de- 
posits (which they do not have) in the savings banks of 
the country. 

J}i 5j« * 

In short, capitalism controls all natural resources, the 
money, the commerce, the transportation lines, the con- 
gress, courts, legislatures, and executives; it controls 



IF THIS BE TREASON MAKE THE MOST OF IT 215 

the press, the churches, the police, the mihtia and the 
political leaders. 

There is no hope unless the working people — the pro- 
ducers of the country — organize in one great body which 
will fight capitaHsm everywhere, in politics, in the press, 
in the pulpit, in the economic field, and in every other 
way, as the time and the necessity may require. 

* 5JC * 

I concede that this preaching may sound ''lawless'' 
to some people. 

But what of it? 

Lawlessness of the right kind is a lever that has 
moved the world forward. 

It was by an unlawful conspiracy that the Magna 
Charta was obtained. The Reformation was a rebel- 
lion against God and the Holy Church. Regicide, then 
the "blackest of crimes," barred out of the English 
constitution the question of the ''divine right of kings." 
Grand larceny in Boston led up to the Declaration of 
Independence. The blood of kings, bishops and nobles 
washed away feudalism in France. And John Brown's 
lawless raid freed the negro slave. 

And last but not least: Are the capitalists of our 
country not also lawless whenever it suits their purpose? 
* * * 

We should be grateful if the social revolution, if the 
freeing of seventy-five million whites, would not cost 
more blood than the freeing of four million negroes in 
1861. 

And the better we are organized, the more political 
power and economic and social strength we obtain — the 
better the people are armed in every respect — the less 
bloody the revolution will be. 



216 berger's broadsides 

Therefore, workingmen of America, organize in your 
unions. Join the Social-Democratic party. Think of 
the tremendous duty before you toward your family, 
your class and your nation. 



Workingmen of Milwaukee, You 
Form the American Vanguard. 

Written September 4, 1909. 

For many years the ruling classes of Europe taught 
their dependents, the working people, that the noblest 
human sentiment was "patriotism,'' that is, the ''love of 
their native country." 

By this the rulers meant the love of institutions, which 
preserved their power over the working class, and de- 
fended them against encroachments from the govern- 
ments of other lands. 

* H« * 

This fetich worked well for a long time. It was deeply 
seated in the minds and hearts of the common people. 
The peasants in the country, and the workers in the 
towns, were always ready to take up arms against those 
who were born on the other side of some arbitrary 
geographical line. 

They were always willing to rush to glory and the 
grave in defense of institutions in which they could have 
no possible interest except to overthrozv and destroy 
them. 

* 5k * 

The poor clods who thus, from servile deference to 



WORKINGMEN YOU FORM THE VANGUARD 217 

their masters, the possessing classes, exposed themselves 
to suffering and death, never for a moment stopped to 
ask themselves the question: Of what concern are all 
these matters to us? 

Why should we French or English or German com- 
moners fight among ourselves, and kill each other about 
the claims of Stuart or of the Orange; of Bourbon or 
Bonaparte; of the Roman pope or the Lutheran king? 

Or, why should we, the common people, fight and bleed 
and die for the purpose of acquiring markets for the 
millionaire manufacturers, while we could use these pro- 
ducts to much better advantages for ourselves, and for 
our wives and children? 

* jK 5*? 

^ Singularly enough, such thoughts for ages never 
occurred to the working people. 

They had always toiled and fought and suffered for 
matters in which they had no real interest. For them 
it was considered dangerous and sinful and rebellious to 
think of anything else. 

They had been told that "law and order'' demanded 
that they should be exploited, and they should die for 
their exploiters if they so commanded. 

And the "holy church" incessantly repeated the old 
chant that such was the will of God. 
* * * 

Not until sixty or seventy years ago there arose in 
Europe men of great science and deep understanding, 
who raised a clarion note of protest against this hellish 
fraud. 

These men pointed out to the working people that the 
interests of all working classes, French, German, Eng- 
lish, American, were one and the same. These men ex- 



218 berger's broadsides 

horted and entreated the working people of all nations 
no longer to let themselves be divided by arbitrary ge- 
ographical lines, by rivers or mountains and by the 
conflicting interests of their masters, but to regard them- 
selves as of one class, one brotherhood, 

* * * 

These men called out : ^'Proletarians of all the world, 
unite ! You have nothing to lose but your chains ! 

''No longer fight the battles of men whose every inter- 
est is to keep you slaves; but fight for yourselves, for 
the right to the full product of your toil. Join in the 
struggle for the abolition of class !" 

He Hs Hs 

The working people of France were the first to heed 
the call. 

They declared boldly: If the old "law and order" de- 
manded their exploitation and their misery, they were 
going to establish a new law and a new order. 

They threw ofif the long-cherished superstition that 
they were slaves of the rich and powerful, by the "will 
of God." 

These workmen determined that if this had been the 
will of God in time past, then God should make a new 
will. 

And that they would help Him make it. And that 
they, the working people, would be the executors of the 

nezv will of God, 

* * * 

Progressive workingmen of other enlightened countries 
of Europe — especially Germany, Holland, Belgium, Den- 
mark, Italy, Austria, England, etc. were soon of the 



WORKINGMEN YOU FORM THE VANGUARD 219 

same opinion, and they formed great political parties — 
Social-Democratic parties. 

And they also formed great unions in every civilized 
nation to protect themselves against the aggressions of 
their former unrestrained masters. Trade unions were 
first organized in England, However, today Germany 
leads in trades unionism. 

Hi H« ♦ 

Nor did they stop at forming mere trades unions, and 
building political parties to seize upon the political power, 
but they also formed co-operative societies for the pur- 
pose of production and distribution. 

So successful have these workingmen's political par- 
ties become, that in Germany, for instance, the party of 
the workmen, the great Social-Democracy, has polled by 
far the largest vote of any party in Germany. And 
were the law of Germany the same as in the United 
States, namely that officers could be elected by a plu- 
rality of the votes polled, the Socialists of Germany 
could probably today elect the chief executive of the 
nation, become the masters of the military power, and 
enforce their just demands above all opposition. 

And the workingmen are almost as successful in 
Austria and in France, and have made tremendous 
headway in England and in the Scandinavian countries. 
* * * 

The first of May each year has been fixed upon by 
the workingmen of Europe as a day when they should 
universally and publicly protest against the industrial 
system which oppresses and crushes them. 

On that day, by parades, public meetings, and eloquent 
speeches, they voice their protest and demand shorter 
hours and "reform." 



220 berger's broadsides 

And they do not stop at these. Their cry is "com- 
plete reform/' 

They want to abolish the present capitalist system and 
put in its place universal co-operation, the collective 
ownership of the means of production and distribution, 
the Socialist commonwealth. 



The workingmen in Europe extend sympathies across 
the sea to the American workmen and say to them, 
"Unite with us!'' 

"You, of America, who work with hand and brain 
for wages, belong to the proletariat the same as we. 

"The rate of your wages is fixed by the same economic 
laws which govern ours. You cannot by the old method 
long carry on the unequal struggle with labor-saving 
machinery and all-powerful combinations of capital with- 
out being reduced to a condition of direct want. 

"You also must make a supreme effort to seize upon 
the political and economic power. You are not hampered 
as we are by old customs which restrict the powers of 
the people. In your country the ballot is supreme and 
you have no excuse for not seizing upon power imme- 
diately, since you are in the great majority." 

* Hi * 

But alas ! the American workingmen have heretofore 
closed their ears to this heroic call from across the sea. 

The American workmen have been taught by the pro- 
tected manufacturers in Pittsburgh and elsewhere to be- 
lieve that they were "better men" and "more intelligent" 
than the laborers of Germany or France. Therefore — ^by 
some queer logic — they should be more willing to he ex^ 
plotted by the capitalist class. 



WORKINGMEN YOU FORM THE VANGUARD 221 

But, queer as it seems, many foolish American v/ork- 
men believed this, and believe it still. 

And Mr. Sam Gompers and others of the same type 
are trying to keep them in that belief. 
^ ^ ^ 

We Americans have another Labor Day, the first Mon- 
day of September. On this day trade unions meet and 
parade. And in some cities they still meet and parade 
before reviewing stands filled with scheming and corrupt 
poHticians, whose every instinct and interest is with the 
enemies of the w^orking class. 

These miserable prostitutes in their speeches to the 
workingmen congratulate them that they are not like 
their brethren in Europe, rebellious against their em- 
ploying exploiters ; that they refuse to entertain ^'foreign 
ideas." 

And, above all things, that they are not Socialists. 

Yet in some cities the American workingmen listen 
and wag their heads approvingly — not knowing what 
gruesome idiots they are thereby making of themselves. 

But mark! that sort of thing has passed for Milwau- 
kee ! and it is rapidly passing in all other American cities. 
On Labor Day no scurvy politician reviews or addresses 
the marching workmen of this city; no battiste hand- 
kerchiefs are waved at the men from the palaces of the 
rich; no Civic Federation leader approves; no traitors 
to labor's cause sanction the labor demonstration. 

A new day has dawned for Milwaukee and it is soon 
coming for all other cities. 

Why? 

J{c * * 

Because the men who join in the procession are mak- 



222 berger's broadsides 

ing their demonstration not as servile cringers at the 
feet of capital, but as men who are heroically demand- 
ing the recognition of the rights of their class. 

Not the right to a few cents more pay per day of the 
product of their labor, but to ALL the product of their 
toil. 

Our Milwaukee organized workingmen know that men 
gain the full product of their labor only by becoming the 
owners of the means of production. Hence they inscribe 
this demand upon their banners. 

Hence they have built up the Social-Democratic party. 
They vote for it and will fight for it — if necessary. 

All hail! you workingmen and working women of 
Milwaukee — you form the American vanguard of the 
greatest and most beneficial revolution this world has 
ever seen. 



The Form of Government Is of 
Little Consequence. 

Written September ii, 1909. 
What is the difference between a republic and a mon- 
archy as far as the condition of the masses is con- 
cerned ? 

^ ^ ^ 

Aside from such natural advantages as our country 
may afford, do the masses of today, under the rule of 
our republic, differ strikingly from the masses under the 
rule of a king? 

Do the favored few enjoy less wealth, less luxuries, 



FORM OF GOVERNMENT OF LITTLE CONSEQUENCE 223 

less influence ? The glories of monarchy have departed, 
but the miseries of the people remain. The contrasts 
which offended their sense of right and aroused their 
just resentment two hundred years ago, are still visible 
on all sides. The workmen are as overshadowed today 
by an opulent class in America and France, as they were 
formerly by a noble class in France and England. 

^ ^ :Jj 

Rapaciousness in the upper circles, far from diminish- 
ing, has increased; greed is allowed to run unbridled 
by any law. The favorites of Industry in every country 
have outstripped the favorites of Royalty. 

In our republic even more than in some monarchies, 
they are permitted to feed on the public, and grow rich 
at our expense. They, too, dwell in palaces, are sur- 
rounded by magnificence, and display their affluence as 
though to mock those from whom they draw their reve- 
nue. They realize profits and amass fortunes which 
bring out, with more vividness than ever before, the 
difference between the two elements of society, the rich 
and the poor. 

* * * 

Now, more than ever, accumulation and waste are seen 
on one side, want and suffering on the other. 

Instead of feudalism, capitalism is dominant, instead 
of Henry VIII, Mammon is king. On him has fallen 
the mantle of sovereignty; before him the respectful 
bearing; to him the obsequious bow. Everything is 
brushed aside to make room for the Majesty of the 
Moneybag. 

* * * 

Wherein, then, so far as actual effects go, consists the 



224 berger's broadsides 

much talked-of superiority of the republican over the 
monarchial system? 

* * * 

A large portion of the population, even those with 
education and industry, are not only unable to better 
their situation, but have to struggle constantly to main- 
tain existence. On the other hand, a small portion, who 
are strangers to toil and to whom education is a mere 
adornment, partake of conditions which, from a material 
standpoint, it would be difficult to better. 

It is therefore manifest that the latter have at their 
disposal something which the former have not; some- 
thing, the possession of which implies an enormous ad- 
vantage in promoting the improvement of one's condi- 
tion, since it alone can bring about results which indus- 
try and education combined often strive vainly to obtain. 
This something, so marvelously effective in its operation, 
so all-sufficient to its possessors, is wealth. 

5JC * * 

This, in the complex adjustments of our social organ- 
ism, is the most potent factor in bringing about an ame- 
lioration of the circumstances of the individual. 

For it matters not under what form of government — 
constitutional or despotic, monarchial or republican — 
man lives, his environment is likely to be little affected 
thereby. Whether he is a Jew or Gentile, Protestant or 
Catholic, does not determine what advantages he shall 
enjoy. Whether he has political rights or not, does not, 
per se, improve his condition in life. But whether he be 
poor or rich does most materially afifect his condition. 

* * * 

He may change his divinities or his rulers, or his 
opinions, and there will be no change in his station; 



FORM OF GOVERNMENT OF LITTLE CONSEQUENCE 225 

but let the size of his purse be changed one way or the 
other and lo! he and his surroundings are immediately 
altered, and the world is to him as a new world. 

His powers, his actions, his desires are amplified or 
restricted. 

He appears as a god amongst men, or as a menial 
amongst gods. 

* * * 

So manifest, indeed, is the superiority which wealth 
gives its possessor; so great is the contrast between the 
opulent class and the poor class, that there is some 
excuse for the impression which prevails among certain 
members of the former, that they are of a race superior 
to the latter. 

* * 5fS 

To the child of fortune is given the golden key which 
opens to him the wide world. He is a free man — free 
to do what fancy suggests ; free to wander where pleas- 
ure calls him. He is enabled to secure all physical and 
all mental enjoyments and attainments. Respect, con- 
sideration, distinction, yes — and love, are within his easy 
reach. Abundance, superfluity attend him on every side. 

He is given all things till overtaken by satiety. 

Leisure and luxury, so craved by many, to him become 
monotonous. 

He grows weary of indulgence in those pleasures 
which the multitudes never taste. 



The poor man, on the contrary, though he hears much 
of sweet liberty, is a slave to adverse circumstances, 
"^^^is hands are chained, his movements circumscribed, 
his wishes ungratified. He searches often in vain for 



226 berger's broadsides 

an outlet for whatever reserve of effort, energy, and 
ambition he may possess. 

Intelligent, educated he may be, refined and cultured 
he may be, yet he may be unable, through lack of capital, 
to work for himself, and he may not even be allowed 
the privilege of working for others. He gazes at this 
immense earth, and yet cannot lay claim to a single 
inch thereof. He lingers at the threshold of the high- 
ways of the world and, not having wherewith to pay 
toll, finds the gates closed to him. 

He is forced into an inferior position without his 
fault, he must carry the odium of being a ''failure'' with- 
out his being to blame. 

He cannot rise, for there are innumerable and often 
insurmountable obstacles in the way of his rising. No 
matter what his capacity or ability, the occasion to use 
these being denied him, he must walk his lowly path. 

5JS HS HS 

Yet the rich and poor are human. Both draw life 
from the same source, both dwell under the same azure 
roof. Both may be equally favored by the hand of 
nature. But, surely, both have not been equally favored 
by the laws of man. 

* ii« * 

The advantages which the few who control great 
wealth have over those who own little or none, are too 
evident to require being elaborately dwelt upon. 

The opportunities which riches offer in the acquiring 
of knowledge, of culture and refinement, as well as the 
comforts and luxuries of life, are sufficient proof that 
they are powerful instruments in improving, not only 
our mental, but our material condition. 

Under existing conditions, wealth is the embodiment 



FORM OF GOVERNMENT OF LITTLE CONSEQUENCE 227 

of power. Without it, all the crowns and sceptres are 
nothing. 

:ii 5}i * 

Possession or non-possession alone decides whether 
one's position shall be high or low, considered or de- 
spised. 

It determines whether our bodies shall enjoy plenty 
or suffer want ; whether our minds shall know peace, our 
sojourn on this planet shall be one of pleasure or of 
misery, one of toil or of leisure. 

' It regulates the quantity and the quality of the desir- 
able, or necessary things one may acquire. 

It prescribes how much liberty one may claim; how 
much of that precious measure of life — called time — he 
may call his own. 

In fact, it affects the condition and the happiness of 
every individual of a nation. 

* * * 

In short, since wealth is the admitted means of satis- 
fying man's most natural, most reasonable, most legiti- 
mate desires, it is manifest that democratic rule, that a 
republic aiming to benefit the people at large, far from 
allowing one to monopolize wealth, should devise means 
to secure its distribution among the greatest possible 
number. 

And this can only be done by the introduction of 
Socialism, otherwise all the political changes effected 
during the last two centuries amount to little or nothing, 
and "sovereignty" of the citizen is a mere bubble. 

Diogenes called a Croesus would still remain what he 
was, and Croesus named Diogenes would be none the 
less rich. 

We want facts, not phrases. 



228 berger's broadsides 



Do We Want Progress by Catas- 
trophe and Bloodshed or by 
Common Sense? 

Written September 25, 1909. 

THE GREATEST DANGER that can befall the So- 
cialist movement — except sectarianism — is the rule of 
catch-words and phrases. 

One of the words used most frequently by clear-cut 
and truly class-conscious, real, proletarian Socialists, is 
the word "revolutionary" in antagonism to "evolution- 
ary." These men — they are usually ex-preachers, ex-law- 
yers or ex-physicians, who want to tell the workingmen 
what to do — seem not to know that there has always 
been a quiet and gradual evolution — an evolution in 
which not only each national struggle, but every national 
catastrophe was a part. 

5K J}J Jjc 

Considering the many examples which might be cited, 
we distinguish two uses of the word "evolution." First 
its larger use, which includes every sort of development, 
regular or irregular, swift or slow, spasmodic or steady. 
Secondly, its more restricted use, which confines it to 
the more regular processes, to growth in the main, even 
and peaceful. 

So much for the meaning of the word "evolution." 
* * * 

By the word "revolution" we usually denote a more 
or less violent convulsion — or a catastrophe. To play 



PROGRESS BY CATASTROPHE OR COMMON SENSE 229 

with this phrase is exceedingly silly — especially when 
people at large are not armed, nor in any other way 
prepared for an uprising, 

The revolutionary phrase almost brought on a cata- 
strophe of late in Sweden — but it undoubtedly would 
have been a catastrophe to the working people. 

^ :{i ^ 

I do not want to say that armed resistance is useless 
or that it will not occur. We shall surely have uprisings 
and bloodshed — and the more bloodshed the less the 
people as a whole are armed. An armed people would 
make a peaceable solution of the question very probable 
— ^because then both sides would be sure to yield. 

However, I want to bring out as strongly as possible 

that a bloody uprising or a ''catastrophe" is nothing to 

be wished for, nothing to be played with, even in 

thought. , 

Jk * ^ 

There are many examples of this violent progress in 
history. 

But there is not one that any friend of humanity or 
any sane friend of progress would wish to see repeated, 
or that would now be repeated if the people who went 
through them could again have the choice of ways after 
the experience. 

And oddly enough, almost always among the men en- 
trusted with leadership in such times, there was one 
man or another who could see the right path, and who 
pointed it out, but to whom the people would not listen. 

Evolution by right reason was not to be, because the 
ultra-conservatives on one side and the ultra-radicals on 
the other would have none of it. 

So they had evolution by catastrophe, invariably much 



230 berger's broadsides 

to the disadvantage and misfortune of the cause they 
pretended to serve. 

* * * 

Let us take the French revolution, for instance. 

In the time of Louis XVI, the greatest statesman of 
France was undoubtedly the physiocrat Turgot. 

When Turgot became minister of France he imme- 
diately strove to develop free political institutions by 
a natural process, and thus avert a catastrophe. Turgot 
saw that the old feudal system was doomed, that a new era 
must come. By vast comprehensive political measures 
he sought to develop an environment which would fit 
the people gradually and safely for the possession of 
their rights, which would lead into the new system. 

France stood at the parting of the ways. Could the 
nation have gone on in the path of peaceful evolution 
marked out by Turgot, it is, according to human fore- 
sight, reasonably certain that constitutional liberty would 
have been reached within a few years and substantial 
republicanism not long after ; that was all the eighteenth 
century could possibly achieve. 

There was then no proletariat in the present sense of 
the word. 

Had Turgot succeeded, what weary years would have 
been avoided — the terror of the guillotine, the despotism 
of the recruiting officer; twenty years of ferocious war; 
millions of violent deaths; billions of treasure flung 
into the gulfs of hatred or greed! 

But on the other side, against Turgot, stood the forces 
which unconsciously and involuntarily made for progress 
by catastrophe — the conservative court in Versailles, the 
leading nobles, the leading churchmen. 



PROGRESS BY CATASTROPHE OR COMMON SENSE 231 

And hating them, but really their truest allies for a 
revolution, stood the radical element — Robespierre, St. 
Just, Marat and their friends. 

Both sets of fanatics, conservative and radical, worked 
together for a bloody revolution. 

So there was progress by catastrophe. 

History records the Paris massacres, the La Vendee 
massacres, the Avignon massacres; the Red terror and 
the White terror ; revolutionary wars and imperial wars ; 
Jacobin despotism and Napoleonic despotism. There 
was a sea of fanaticism and of hypocrisy ; the fanatics 
perished, almost all of them; the hypocrites almost all 
survived. There were numberless bloody battles. The 
downfall of Napoleon, the Bourbon reaction, the revolu- 
tion of 1848, the June massacres, Napoleon III, the De- 
cember massacres, the Napoleonic reaction, the downfall 
of Napoleon III, the Commune and the Pere La Chaise 
massacres — a whole long line of sterile revolutions and 
futile tyrannies, each bringing forth a new spawn of in- 
triguers, doctrinaires and phrase-makers, schemers and 
tyrants. And as a result of it all, such a weak republic 
that nine or ten years ago it was only saved by the 
Socialists from again becoming an old style monarchy. 

Such is the experience with catastrophes in France 
during the last hundred years or so. 

^ He Jk 

Take next our American civil war. 

All men now see that this bloody contest against 
slavery was drawing on many years before 1861 ; but 
some Americans saw it then and they tried to avert it. 

Only one man presented a great and simple measure. 
That man was Henry Clay. Himself a Virginian by 
birth, he proposed to extinguish slavery gradually by 



232 berger's broadsides 

a small national sacrifice. His plan was to begin at 
a certain year to purchase and emancipate all newly born 
slaves, until gradually through the extinction of the 
older negroes by death, and the enfranchisement of the 
younger by purchase, slavery would disappear. 

It was a great plan. A similar one was adopted later 
in Brazil and worked excellently. Clay's plan might 
kave cost the United States twenty-five millions of dol- 
lars. But fanatics on both sides opposed it. 

The slave barons of the South would have none of it, 
for it was contrary to their theory that slavery was 
a blessing, sanctioned by the bible and embedded in the 
constitution. 

The Abolitionists of the North would have none of it, 
because it was contrary to their theory that one man 
ought not to buy another. 

The result we all know. Slavery was indeed abolished, 
but, instead of being abolished by a peaceful evolution, 
without bloodshed and with an outlay of only twenty- 
five million dollars, it was abolished by one of the most 
fearful of modern revolutions — at a cost (when all the 
loss is reckoned in) of ten thousand millions of dollars, 
and of nearly, if not quite, a million of lives, among 
them some of the noblest the nation had to give. 

Thus we had political and social progress by cata- 
strophe rather than by growth — progress not by evolu- 
tion, but by "revolution." 

History is full of such examples. 

* * * 

The question now arises, is this the necessary law of 
human progress? 

Must the future of mankind be no better than the 
past ? 



PROGRESS BY CATASTROPHE OR COMMON SENSE 233 

A capitalist orator has recently answered this question 
with a phrase. He tells us that "all great reforms must 
be baptized in blood." Karl Marx made a similar state- 
ment. He told us ''that force is the midwife at the birth 
of every new epoch.'' Ferdinand Lasalle expressed the 
same opinion. 

Most Socialists accept this belief as warranted by 
human nature. 

And almost involuntarily the writer of this article is 
inclined to take the view, as there seems to be much in 
history to support it. 

Take even the simplest principles of political liberty. 

Before they could be secured in England, one king 
lost his head, another his crown. Take the simplest 
thing in religion, the principle of toleration; before it 
could be established, the world had to wade through 
the religious wars and horrors of the sixteenth century, 
the thirty years' war — and battles, massacres and execu- 
tions innumerable. 

The possibilities of human unreason are indeed vast, 
and the social question, the problem of abolishing wage 
slavery and giving to every worker the full product of 
his labor, is greater and farther reaching than any that 
humanity has hitherto encountered. 
* * * 

But, after all, this is no cause for rejoicing, and there 
is every reason to look for another way out. And if we 
look closer into the history of the past there is also 
much to give us hope. The very law of evolution itself 
seems to encourage us. It would seem that not only 
better results, but better methods are gradually evolved. 

Before all, in almost every civilized country the work- 
ing people now have the ballot, the right to vote. 



234 berger's broadsides 

This IS the first instance in the history of the world 
that the oppressed class has virtually the same political 
basis as the ruling class, the oppressors. 

The proletariat outnumbers the capitalist class most 
eflfectively, and actually has the fate of every country 
in its hands, if the proletariat can make terms with the 
farmers. 

The existence of great Social-Democratic political 
organizations in every civilized country shows this more 
hopeful side of human progress. 

The excellent party discipline, without "bossism,'* as 
shown by the Socialist parties in Germany, France and 
lately also in Belgium and Sweden, is another encour- 
aging sign, because a large and well disciplined body of 
men can, under favorable conditions, enforce great can- 
cessions without recourse to physical force and blood- 
shed. 

That bloody battles are not always necessary for pro- 
gress was proved in 1688 in English history, when the 
bloody revolution against the Stuart was sealed by a 
peaceful one. And again in the year 1832, when Eng- 
land was put on a democratic basis. And it has also 
been shown by various peaceful reforms in almost every 
civilized country during the last twenty years. 

And especially in oitr country, where the ballot is 
supposed to be well-nigh almighty in things politic, it is 
well worth while to try all kinds of social reforms — m.n- 
nicipal, state and national. 

Such reforms will not only mitigate the burdens of 
the present and the next generation and strengthen the 
power of resistance of the proletariat, but also fit it for 
the part it intends to play. Nay more, it will make that 



THE PROFIT SYSTEM KNOWS NO CREED 235 

part possible by furnishing political power to the work- 
men. 

* * 5^ 

This great question of tactics, therefore, is more than 
a mere question of methods. 

If the development of the race is to go on, the social 
problem brought about by the economic development 
must be solved. 

But the question is also : Are we to secure the change, 
as so often in the past, by a century or two of revolu- 
tions, contra-revolutionary reactions, bloodshed and new 
revolutions — or can we reach our next goal in civiliza-: 
tion by reason and the spirit of humanity? ; 

It is for both sides — the capitalists and the proletariat 
— to answer this question. 



The Profit System Knows no Creed. 

Written October 9, 1909. 

A RELIGIOUS newspaper makes the assertion: 
That modern materialism has degraded the workingmen 
to machines, and that "godless Socialism" is now pro- 
ceeding to lower them to ''brute beasts." 

It goes without saying that this pious paper is a 
"pious fraud/' 

* * * 

To begin with, materialistic liberalism is far from 
having degraded human beings and workingmen to 
machines. It has indeed made men the servants of 
machines. It furthermore strives on one hand to justify 



236 berger's broadsides 

this degradation of the workingmen effected by social 
conditions; while on the other hand it seeks to blind the 
workingman to his degradation by means of all sorts 
of vested rights and privileges. 

Socialism, however, will free the workingmen from 
the weakness and wretchedness of his degradation and 
make him a man once more. It will make the machine 
the man's servant — the machine which today is his 
master. 

^ H^ 5{{ ^ 

Of course, we admit that the capitalistic mode of pro- 
duction has degraded the workingman to a living ap- 
pendage of the machine, and compelled him to sacrifice 
his human dignity to capitalistic profit. 

* 5K Hi 

But religion or irreligion has nothing to do with nt. 

The capitalistic method of production agrees just as 
well with Judaism as with the Chinese religion. It fits 
to Christianity as to materialistic liberalism. 

We have never heard of any church or religious body 
that has condemned capitalism, or the production of 
surplus value and profit at the expense of the well-being 
of the laboring class, as irreligious and incompatible 
with the creed. 

However bitterly Jews, Christians, heathens and free- 
thinkers may contend together on matters of faith, their 
social faith (if they belong to the upper class) is the 
same. 

It consists in this one article, that the capitalistic form 
of society is the best we can have — that it is the only one 
which has any right to existence. 

* * * 

The majority of the men and women who live by the 



THE PROFIT SYSTEM KNOWS NO CREED 237 

labor of the masses and who therefore have participated 
in the degradation of the workingmen, belong to some 
religious body or church, and yet they do not feel dis- 
turbed by this one bit — on the contrary they consider 
themselves good churchmen. 

In Europe some of the Roman Catholic monasteries 
and nunneries are great "business institutions/' And 
it remained for the Socialists to show up what beastly 
and inhuman employers they are in most cases, because 
they had even the advantage of being furnished orphans, 
fallen women, unfortunate men, etc, as workers. 

However, the average capitalist, whether Christian, 
Jew or heathen, is subject to the economic laws of today. 
And those who are free-thinkers or adherents of mate- 
rialistic liberalism obey the same social laws which con- 
trol all capitalistic society. 

They make all they can out of their workmen, just like 
the Christians and Jews. 

Surplus value and profit have nothing to do with 
religious dogma, for they fit in well with any of these 
creeds. 

And this cannot be otherwise. 

* sK * 

Let us take a most Christian capitalist, for instance. 
If he expects a return from his capital on which he can 
live, he must invest it profitably. 

Let us suppose that he invests it in railway stock, 
which pays him good dividends, or in a factory which 
yields him a considerable profit, or in a business which 
brings him in a considerable gain. Workmen are con- 
tinually necessary to work with the capital and produce 
the surplus value which the capitalist receives as divi- 
dends, profit, gain, ground rent and so on to heart's con- 



238 berger's broadsides 

tent. Workmen must be made use of so that the capita! 
may not only remain intact, but increase and furnish the 
owner with an income. 

But the conditions under which the workmen are made 
use of are not created by the individual capitalist em- 
ployer, but by the state of the labor market, and the 
general conditions of production. 

The most Christian employer can pay no more than the 
heathen, the free-thinker or the Jew. 
^ ^ ^ 

Suppose that a philanthropic manufacturer should pay 
his wc;rkmen much higher wages and insure them other 
favorable conditions of labor which they do not have in 
other places. 

What would be the inevitable consequence? 

The good man would no longer be a match for com- 
petition, and he would soon — very soon, too — see before 
him the alternative — either to pay his workmen as poorly 
as his competitors pay theirs, or wind up his business. 

It is capitalism which prescribes conditions in our 
present society. To these conditions even the individual 
capitalist or employer is subjected, whatever may be his 
own private inclination. 

Capitalism compels the capitalist to be cruel and brutal. 

Capitalism makes workmen the living appendages of 
machines. 

Only Socialism, the aim of v/hich is the abolition of 
capitalism, will make the laborer a man once more. 

How? 

By withdrawing capital from individual control and 
making it the common property of the whole people. 

By making society master of its social means of exist- 
ence and thus giving it a chance to fit the production of 



THE PROFIT SYSTEM KNOWS NO CREED 239 

goods to its necessities, instead of fitting its necessities 
to the despotism of capital. 

By freeing the capitaHst from the necessity of being a 
tyrant to his workmen, and the workmen from the neces- 
sity of selling themselves to the capitalist for starvation 
wages and sacrificing their human dignity to capitalist 

profit. 

jji * * 

And the "good" Christian paper calls this aim of 
Socialists the lowering of men to the level of brute 
beasts ! 

Ah ye pious humbugs, consider the horrible conditions 
under which thousands and tens of thousands of our 
fellow men rot away in the midst of our "Christian 
civilization," and then tell us, who has ground down 
these wretches to the level of beasts? 

Only Socialism can help these unfortunates. 

Present society has nothing for them but disgust and 
suspicion — the prison and the gallows. 
^ ^ ^ 

Workingmen of all nations and all denominations, 
throw off your medieval prejudices ! Throw off the yoke 
of clericalism and hellish superstition which has cost the 
lives of untold millions. Be strong! Be fearless! Be 
free ! And even you may yet be happy. Then your des- 
cendants will surely be happy. 



240 berger's broadsides 



How to Make the Change. 

Written November 2y^ 1909. 

[The following from the pen of Victor L. Berger, is 
reproduced this week by request of a western reader. 
It was written in answer to ''A Late Comer/' who asked 
this question: ''It seems to me that in the 'Social-Demo- 
cratic Herald' you often stand for a somewhat dif- 
ferent school of Socialism from the other Socialist papers 
I read. Will you not please inform me how you are to 
make it possible for a Transition to Socialism to take 
place?"] 

We do not need at all ''to make it possible.'' The tran- 
sition is coming quite of itself. In a certain sense, we 
find ourselves in it at the present day. 

Socialism is the name of an epoch of civilization — the 
next epoch, if our civilization is to continue in existence. 

We must not expect that the Socialist era will come all 
at one stroke. Neither capitalism nor feudalism arose 
"at a certain date," nor can the Socialist form of society 
have its beginning on any fixed day. 

Besides, although capitalistic society has already passed 
its zenith, yet even at the present day feudalism holds a 
very important place in modern society. 

This is the case not only in Germany, in spite of its 
high economic development, but also in England, the 
"classic land" of capitalism. 



HOW TO MAKE THE CHANGE 241 

Just SO with any revolution. 

Capitalism will not vanish in one day, in one year or 
in one decade. Even after the triumph of the proletariat, 
the commonwealth cannot take upon itself all kinds of 
production. 

^ ijc * 

Many industries today are not at all concentrated, and 
therefore are not yet ripe for this. Some will become 
so in time, others perhaps will not The editor of this 
paper is no prophet, and will not attempt to predict 
details. 

However, the trusts are now showing the Social- 
Democrats how they must do it, only they will have to do 
it from a Socialist standpoint and for the benefit of all 
the people. 

He ijc * 

It is not necessary that all industries should be imme- 
diately taken over by the Socialist republic, or as many 
Socialists prefer to say, by the "Socialist society." 

Every branch of production controlled by a trust, as 
well as all industries which could be conducted on a 
similar scale, besides railways, telegraphs, mines, etc., 
will, of course become collective public property. 

But there is a whole class of industries which are not 
yet ready to be worked on this large scale or which are 
liable to be decentralized by the technical perfection of 
the methods of transmitting power. These without any 
objection may remain in private hands. 

We refer to certain petty industries, as well as mainly 
to agriculture. 

* * 5fC 

In all such cases the Socialist state can give the oppor- 
tunity for the formation of associations which, together 



242 



BERGER S BROADSIDES 



with the model industries directed by the state, will raise 
the level of the workers in these branches to a degree 
incredible at the present time. 

The chief reason why workingmen's associations have 
been impossible hitherto, has even now been removed by 
the trusts, and, of course, will be of still less account at 
the rise of the political power of the proletariat. 

As long as the former anarchial condition of produc- 
tion prevailed, workingmen's productive associations, 
started usually with very little capital or with outside 
capital. 

They were, therefore, especially subject to bankruptcy. 
They were compelled to produce continually in order to 
support their members, and not having any control of 
the market, they did not know how much to produce. 
And consequently, with their insufficient or borrowed 
capital, they quickly went to the wall when there was any 
difficulty in the market. 

55« Hs * 

But this is now quite different. 

The trusts show how a regulated business can be done. 

The management of the workingmen's associations 
will find out what the demand is, and determine the what, 
how and how much of production. 

During the transition period the sale of products may 
take place exactly as at present, only subject to regula- 
tion by the government which will be in the hands of 
the working class. 

* * Hs 

\ In the trusts, the capitalist class even nozv plays the 
most superfluous role in the world. 

Indeed, in the trusts the capitalist class is already ex- 



HOW TO MAKE THE CHANGE 243 

propriated to a certain extent; for they no longer have 
anything to control, and only draw their profits. 

Their industries are apparently the property of the 
shareholders ; but what sort of property is that of which 
one has not the free disposal? 

They can no longer produce what they will, nor at 
what price they will, nor with what workmen they will ; 
all, all is prescribed to them by the management of the 
trust. Properly speaking, the shareholders are not the 
owners, they are only the profit-receivers. 

jj; j(c :js 

Why, then, if the proletariat gets political power, 
should workingmen's associations not be possible, which, 
instead of the capitalists, will own the factories where 
the workmen themselves will choose the managers and 
themselves receive the profits? 

Of course, at the same time, many industries, all of 
those of national magnitude, could be carried on by the 
government. Where necessary, the government could 
make some agreement with the productive associations 
of workers. 

We speak of the transition period. 
^ ^ ^ 

In this transition period, the Socialist government, of 
course, can lend the necessary capital to the productive 
societies and furnish suitable guarantees. 

The government in this transition period will have at 
its disposal quite different powers than it has at present. 

For instance, it will have a monopoly of all water 
power, coal mines, railroads, rivers, electrical plants, etc. 

So, perhaps for a time a state of afifairs may arise 
which will combine at the same time the three forms 
of production ; the capitalistic in petty industries, where 



244 berger's broadsides 

goods will be produced for the market; the co-operative, 
in which the products will also be for sale; and the 
purely socialistic, where the government will carry on 
production for use only, and the product will not take 
the form of wares at all. 

* * * 

That all this will take place peacefully, I do not main- 
tain. However, it surely will not come peacefully if the 
people are not armed. 

But riots and bloodshed do not seem to us at all desir- 
able. Nor do I believe that one great revolution can 
turn topsy-turvy the whole civilized world, and undo or 
make superfluous any economic development. 

5j! * * 

Capitalism was necessary to give mankind dominion 
over the forces of nature, which is now assured by our 
scientific attainments. 

Considered in itself, capitalism has by no means 
reached that point of time where it becomes impossible. 
On the contrary, in the trust system, it has just stepped 
into a new phase, the duration of which is unlimited 
according to our present light. 

Of course, from a civilizing force, capitalism has 
already become a menace to civilization. But that does 
not affect its vitality! 

However, the tendencies which oppose it have now 
gathered such strength that a thorough change — must 
not indeed — ^but can take place, if the working class 
understands its mission. 

In conclusion let me also say that the world's history is 
always made by men, and is not a mere natural process, 
as some Marxists want us to believe. 



WOMEN MUST FIND PROFITS FOR THE TRUSTS 245 



The Women Must Find the Profits 
For the Trusts. 

Written February 5, 1910. 

One more question to you, madam. Have you noticed 
that the prices of all the necessaries of life, have gone 
up as they never went up before? 

Of course, you have noticed that they were very high. 
But do you know that the American prices on January i, 
1910, were the highest ever recorded? 

* 5{J ^ 

According to statistics, breadstuffs, which were, to use 
an average figure, 52 cents on July i, 1896 — were 99 
cents on September i, 1907, and $1.02 on July i, 1910. 

It is true that because of the general outcry, some 
prices have fallen slightly, about one-half per cent whole- 
sale. 

What if they did? Even so, most prices are higher 
than they ever were known to be before. And the chances 
are that they will hold their own this year. 

We should like to know, madam, how you manage to 
feed your family on the money you get. 

How do you manage to make ends meet, especially 
at the close of the week ? 

Did you ever think about it yourself? 

* >fs * 

No doubt this last year has been very hard on you. 
Food prices especially have gone up to figures they 
have never before reached. 



246 berger's broadsides 

But it has been found by statistics that more than half 
of the total income of a workingman's family is spent 
for food. 

* sK * 

And that is natural enough. Before all things, one 
must eat. 

The rent may be stood off. The clothing may be 
patched. The family may be cold. But the children 
must eat. And so must the grown people. 

Now, what will you do with your family, madam? 
^ ^ ^ 

The wealthy people say that you do not know how to 
save, madam. 

But how can you save ? 

Because the average workingman is poor^ his family is 
unable to practice such ordinary economies as the middle 
class think most necessary. 

The wife buys one cake of soap for 5 cents, when 25 
cents would buy six cakes. She buys one can of tomatoes 
at a time for 10 cents, when six cans may be bought for 
50 cents, etc. 

For the workingman who earns $750 a year, which is 
more than the average workingman earns in Milwaukee, 
we can say the following: 

His family is underfed; is almost ragged; is cold in 
winter ; is huddled, six or seven persons, in four rooms ; 
is without sanitation; is weighted down by debts; is a 
prey to Shylocks ; is in wretched surroundings ; and is in 
a daily race with starvation. 

For meat, the average family eats sausage, cheap stew 
meat, pork, and sometimes the cheapest round steak. 



WOMEN MUST FIND PROFITS FOR THE TRUSTS 247 

And they are mighty glad to get that. Half the year the 
family uses no eggs. 

The only luxury is tobacco for the head of the family. 
And in some families, an occasional pint of beer. 

sjc ^ :jj 

Certain papers are beginning to print all sorts of fine 
recipes; how you can live on cornstarch alone, for 3 
cents a day. But I would advise you not to try it. 

Others tell you how you could live on nuts alone. 
But nuts have gone up fearfully of late. You would 
better cut them out. 

Still others — among them an archbishop — claim that 
your family eats too much, and that you do not know 
how to cook. 

So what are you going to ao about it ? 

:Jc >{{ ijc 

This is a great country, and produces all we need. 
We produce so many things of all kinds, particularly 
foodstuffs, that we send them all over the world. And 
if there should not be enough, we could easily produce 
ten times as much. 

Wise men tell us that the Mississippi Valley alone 
could raise food enough to feed the inhabitants of the 
whole world. 

And yet steady, industrious working people make 
hardly the barest kind of a bare living. 

And that is your case also, if you are. the wife of a 
workingman, of a clerk, of a teacher, a clergyman, or 
a small business man. 

And do you know the reason for this ungodly rise of 
the means of livelihood? Do you know it is not a bad 
harvest, that it is not because things did not grow, nor 
because cattle cannot be raised? 



248 . berger's broadsides 

It is simply because everything is in the hands of a few 
trusts. 

They not only control the packing houses, but through 
their cold storage houses and magazines control also the 
poultry, the butter and the fruit. 

And through their elevators they control the wheat, 
which naturally influences the price of bread. 

The railroads do the rest. 

* ^ * 

The trust owners, of course, need the money. 

The average New York plutocrat spends $400,000 a 
year for his household and living expenses — that means 
500 times more than a workingman's family gets whose 
head has steady employment. 

There are 100 women in New York who each spend 
$30,000 a year for dresses, and 1,000 who spend $15,000 
a year each. 

Quite a number of our millionaires own plates of solid 

gold and there are rich families who boast of china 

costing $5, 000 a dozen. 

^ ^ ^ 

A hundred thousand dollars would not even pay the 
interest on the money spent for trinkets which are worn 
every evening at the Metropolitan opera by the rich 
women in the boxes. There are a number of New York 
women that boast that their jewelry costs them half a 
million dollars. A single pearl necklace was recently 
sold at Tiffany's for $200,000. There are fifty New York 
men who wear link cuff buttons worth $5,000 a pair. 

So the capitalists need the money. 

Tile stables of the horses and the dog kennels of the 
millionaires are infinitely nicer than your house. 



WOMEN MUST FIND PROFITS FOR THE TRUSTS 249 

There are some poodle dogs that wear diamond studded 
necklaces costing $10,000 or more. 

And no matter how pretty and good your child may 
be, it will never have as good a living in this world as 
a milionaire's dog or horse — if capitalism is to last. 
^ ^ ^ 

There is only one way in which we can stop this starva- 
tion brought about artificially by a handful of sharks in 
human form. 

The nation must get possession of the trusts^ and thus 
get possession of the most necessary means of livelihood 
for the people. 

We have spoken to your husband about this. Maybe 
he understands. But it is also possible that he has not 
given any thought to this matter. 
}j« ^ ^ 

Now we want to speak to you. We know you have 
at heart the welfare of your children, the welfare of 
your family. 

We want you to think of your present condition. We 
want you to think of your future, of your old age. 

We want you to think what will become of you and 
your children if your husband should get out of work? 

What will become of you and your children if your 
husband should become sick, if he should die? 

jK Jk 5k 

Think of all this, if your husband does not. 

And then answer this question: Is the Social-Demo- 
cratic party right or not, when it tries to unite the work- 
ingmen and the poor people generally in order to change 
this system, so that you and your children and your 
neighbor and her children shall be taken care of now 
and be assured for the future? 



250 berger's broadsides 

For the Social-Democratic party expects to find its 
strongest ally in the home. The Social-Democratic party 
expects to find an ally in every woman who loves her 
husband and her children. 

And the Social-Democratic party is entitled to the 
help of every woman. It fights especially for woman 
and the home. 

It fights for better economic conditions — that means 
a fight for greater prosperity and greater happiness for 
every woman. 

Women can only be happy when they can keep their 
children comfortable, well-fed, well-dressed — when they 
can have a good home for them. 

Jfs * Jk 

Women are spending the money of the wage-earners 
for the benefit of the home. Therefore women are the 
principal victims of the trust exploitation. 

Jjs 5|C 5{C 

It is the woman who must find the profits for the 
trusts out of her household money. It is the woman 
who must find the dividends on the watered trust stocks 
and who must find the dividends for the beef trust, the 
coal trust, the ice trust, the gas trust, the cotton trust, 
the woolen trust and all the other trusts. 

The woman is doing all the managing. And she must 
do all the worrying to make possible the enormous trust 
profits. 

She bears the brunt of the criminal taxation of the 
people by the trust and the trust government. 

5JC Jj! HS 

' Therefore, we want you to see that your husband or 
young grown-up son gets some reading matter about the 
Social-Democratic party. 



WOMEN MUST FIND PROFITS FOR THE TRUSTS 251 

It is the greatest workingman's party in the world, and 
has done much good for the workingmen and the poor 
people all over the world. And it has also made a good 
record in Milwaukee. 

This literature will explain how the Social-Democratic 
party intends to proceed so that the nation may get 
possession of the trusts and return to the common people 
what is their natural heritage, because it is the working 
people who have made it all. 

And remember, madam, every vote for the Social- 
Democratic party is a knock for the trust and a boost 
for you and your children. Every vote for the Social- 
Democratic party helps to make your bread cheaper, and 
your old age more secure. 

Tell your husband to get our reading matter. It will 

cost you nothing. And it cannot hurt him or you. 
* ^ * 

If you do not agree with us, you need not accept our 
ideas. 

But if you do, then help us to make this life better, 
nicer and more worth living. 



252 berger's broadsides 



In What Respect Are We 
Better Off? 

Written July 2, 1910. 
Next Monday we will celebrate the Fourth of July — 
celebrate the anniversary of the day when wie cut loose 
from England. 

The eagle will ''scream/' And we shall hear much 
about our ''blessed liberties'' and that wonderful constitu- 
tion of the United States. 

*' * * 

But in what respecr are our people more free than the 
people of England? 

In what respect is our written constitution superior to 
the unwritten constitution of England — unless it be that 
America is ruled by a plutocratic oligarchy, while Eng- 
land is in the hands of a capitalistic aristocracy. 

However, there is this to be said in favor of the Eng- 
lish constitution: it can be changed at any time by a 
simple act of parliament, while it require^ a bloody war 
of four years to make a comparatively slight change in 
ours. 

Otherwise, it may be said as a general principle that 
a man must have money in America as in England in 
order to buy food, clothes and shelter. And that if a 
man has no capital he must work for wages in America 
as in England. And the effect of the introduction of 



IN WHAT RESPECT 'ARE WE BETTER OFF 253 

machinery into our methods of production is no different 
in this country than in England or any other country. 
Sifting things to the bottom — the great masses of the 
American people are no better off because the 'Tourth 
of July, 1776/' has happened. 
^ Hi ^ 

The Declaration of Independence is the document that 
is supposed to contain the cardinal principles of the 
American republic and the American mode of govern- 
ment. It is a great document, far superior to the con- 
stitution of the United States — which was never more 
than a miserable compromise between a few men who 
stood for wealth and a few men who stood for ideas. 
* * * 

Right in the beginning of the Declaration of Independ- 
ence we find a beautiful phrase. ''All men are created 
equal" and are endowed ''with certain inalienable rights ; 
among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happi- 
ness. "' 

Is this phrase true? 

^ jji ;{« 

"All men are created equal.'' This may be true. 

But do they live equal? Do they die equal? 

The child of the poor is born in a hovel surrounded 
by misery and poverty from its first moments. There 
are three chances to one that it will not survive the first 
year. And even if it does, there is a life of misery before 
it, dangers of sickness tenfold as great, temptations to 
crime and prostitution a thousand times as great as for 
the child of the rich. If it safely passes all these perils, 
a life of drudgery is before it, ended by an early death, 
which is often to be considered a boon since it saves the 
victim from the poor house. 



254 berger's broadsides 

Usually this poor person has not even a claim on 
heaven, never having belonged to any church, and know- 
ing little or nothing about religion, which is a more or 
less costly article. 

"All men are created equal !'' 

* * >k 

How about the child of the rich, surrounded by all 
comforts and protections which paternal love and money 
can furnish? He grows up in comfort and security and 
receives an excellent education. His life is a round of 
pleasure mingled perhaps with as much work as is neces- 
sary to health. 

Unless killed early by excessive luxury or riotous liv- 
ing, he can live to a ripe old age, honored and loved by 
every one as a pillar of society and the church. 

And if he gives money to charities and churches, when 
he dies he has even a very good claim to a reserved seat 
in heaven. 

It is a phrase which did well enough in its time, but 
which now, like most phrases, has become a lie. 

The reason? The struggle for existence has changed 
entirely since the days of Jefferson and Paine. All that 
was needed in those days was to give every individual 
a chance to fight it out for himself. 

This great country was undeveloped, and there were 
thousands of chances for everybody to make a decent 
and honorable living, and to prove that all men are 

created equal. 

* * >fi 

In those days there was some sense in the motto, 
"Every man for himself.'' 

However, since the development of the capitalist sys- 



IN WHAT RESPECT ARE WE BETTER OFF 255 

tern, with machinery and railways, this rule has led to 
the struggle of all against all. Most men are compelled 
to be what they are by an inhuman competition. 

Competition now means, "Do everybody because every- 
body will do you.'' 

It is competition which causes the labor of women 
and children. 

It is competition which finally winds up by killing 
competition and creating the trust, 
^ >j? ij« 

True, it is said that we are ''all equal before the law/' 
and that in this sense the phrase that all men are created 
equal has become the truth. 

But are we equal before the law? We are, if we have 
money enough to get a good lawyer. 
^ ^ ^ 

There is a flood of laws passed every year. 

How many of these laws are for the purpose of pro- 
tecting the poor, the weak and the helpless? 

Very few. Most of them are simply enacted for the 
protection of ''life and property," that is, protection of 
the property of those who have it, and protection of the 
life of those whose lives are worth something in a capital- 
istic sense. 

There is no protection for those who have no property 
whatever. The life of the miner who goes down in the 
bowels of the earth, several hundred feet deep — the life 
of the man who works in a big factory — receives scanty, 
or no protection 

Yet under the protection of the law the sugar trust 
made one hundred and ten millions profit last year. The 
ste^l trust made even more. The Pacific Railway com- 



256 berger's broadsides 

pany and every other thievish combine have the protec- 
tion of the law. 

* * * 

Truly, the people learn slowly in this country. 



The Only Way For the People to 
Combat the Meat Tru^. 

Written October 22, 1910. 

THE MEAT TRUST has made its existence plainly 
felt in the kitchens of rich and poor. Even the govern- 
ment of the United States has seen fit to take action 
against the pork kings. Every one is talking about the 
trusts and the common people are against them. 

jK 5fc 5JS 

In regard to the outcome of the investigation of the 
meat trust by the government, it is safe to say that the 
result will be nothing in the future as it was nothing in 
the past. 

In other words — the meat trust and the other trusts 
own the government. 

5jj * * 

Every investigation of the trusts by the Republican 
government is a bluff. 

The court could find the "guilty conspirators" in the 
case of the boycotting Danbury hatters quickly enough — 
and the court found every member of the union guilty. 

But the investigators in Chicago will never find evi- 
dence against the millionaires making up the meat trust. 



■i 



ONLY WAY TO COMBAT THE MEAT TRUST 257 

And the price of all kinds of meat continues to rise. 
It is now the highest since the war — when the country 
was on a greenback basis. 

This meat trust has made it possible for a few men 
representing the private interest of a few firms to fix 
the price of meat, the article of consumption which 
next to bread, forms the most important food for 90,- 
000,000 citizens. 



The business of the new firms composing the meat 
trust has reached a magnitude which excludes any kind 
of competition. They can at their pleasure exploit the 
nation. 

It is reported that the net earnings of the meat trust 
during the last twelve years amounted to over $200,000,- 
000 annually. 

* 5{S Jf! 

And it is not the lack of cattle which has caused the 
rise in meat values — no matter what the hog kings may 
say. This country supplies a great part of the civilized 
world with flesh foods. 

A rational management of the existing supply would 
readily yield still greater increase of stock cattle than is 
obtained at present. But the ranchmen say that the 
packers oppress them. 

* * Hi 

Nor is the expense of the packing house excessive. In 
these plants all parts of the animals are so handled that 
nothing — simply nothing — is wasted. 

It is the boast of the packers that they utilize every- 
thing of the pig except the squeal. 



258 berger's broadsides 

At the same time, it is well known that workmen in the 
packing houses belong to the poorest paid and most ex- 
ploited laborers in the country. 

It is really a disgrace to this country that the govern- 
ment has not taken some steps to change the barbaric 
conditions in the big packing houses in spite of the ex- 
pose made a few years ago by that celebrated book, "The 
Jungle." 

* * * 

So it is an undisputed fact that neither the grower of 
the cattle, nor the worker in the packing house gets any 
advantage from the abnormal gains of the packer. 

The trust simply dictates prices both for the raw mate- 
rial bought and for the product sold by it, and at the 
same time pays as little wages to its workmen as is pos- 
sible to pay. 

Nor is this all. 

* * * 

By its "route" cars, which are perambulating butcher 
shops, it has destroyed the retail business of the small 
towns, and it has been known for a long time that the 
retail dealers in the large cities are simply its agents. 

By its cold storage houses the trust controls also the 
market for eggs, butter, vegetables and fruits. 
^ ^ ^ 

Its business transactions amount to $700,000,000 an- 
nually and this business is growing with the natural in- 
crease of the population. 

* 5k Hs 

And this shows plainly the nature of these exactions, 
that while prices within the United States have been 
advanced continually, those charged European consumers 
have been adapted to the local state of each market. 



ONLY WAY TO COMBAT THE MEAT TRUST 259 

Thus, American meats are cheaper in London or 
Liverpool or Dublin, than they are in New York, Chicago 
of Milwaukee — the frozen meats of Australia compelling 
the reduction in Europe. 

^ ^ iii 

The fact is that under the Sherman law the combina- 
tion of the meat packers is "illegal" — just as illegal as 
the blacklists against employes and the underhanded 
dealings against cattle dealers, which form a part of the 
conspiracy of the wholesale butchers against the public. 

However, the Sherman anti-trust law seems to work 
only against the trade unions. 

^ ^ i{C 

But what is to be done? The two ''great" political 
parties are owned by the trusts. The leaders of the Dem- 
ocratic party in the East and in the South — where it still 
exists — are all trust men. 

And the Republican party has long been known to be 
the favored organization of capitalists and capitalism. 
Taft, Root and Roosevelt are fruits of the same tree. 

^ 5j« ^ 

And La Follette might just as well expect a wolf to 
eat hay as expect the Republican party to become ''anti- 
trust." 

The various Republican cliques — the Insurgents, Pro- 
gressives, etc., — that now steal a few Socialistic planks, 
will never accomplish anything and have never accom- 
plished anything worth while anywhere. They are simply 
serving as a cloak to hide the iniquity of the Republican 
party as a whole. 

These various state and local reform associations 
simply serve as feeders for the great capitalist political 



260 berger's broadsides 

system, by advising well-meaning men to vote that ticket 
in the vain hope that by some miracle the Republican 
party might change. 

But no more can it change than a tiger can ever be 
made to become a domestic animal. 



Even now the ''Progressives" of Milwaukee are asked 
to vote for "Mad Mullah" Bancroft, ''Sport" McGee, the 
$12,000 "Uncle Ike barrel'' Knell, and other notorious 
characters. 

And the "Progressive" state central committee, and 
the "Progressive" county committee want the people to 
vote for these men. 

* * * 

As for the Democratic party — that is knocked out in 
Milwaukee pretty effectively by the Republican 20 per 
cent law in this state. 

However, in the North it is going to pieces every- 
where. 

The South of our country is just waking up in a capi- 
talistic sense. And the southern capitalists (who are in- 
variably Democrats) want their share of the general 
plunder. The Democratic party of the South is down 
there exactly what the Republican party is here. Only 
the name is different. 

It is silly to blame the trusts. 

The trusts are in business to make more money. And 
they naturally try to get as much as possible for their 
goods. 

Every small merchant does the same. The principle is 
the same. 



ONLY WAY TO COMBAT THE MEAT TRUST 261 

The motive — the desire to make as much profit as 
possible — is also the same. 

The difference is only that the trust does on a large 
scale what the small business men do on a petty scale. 

And the central idea of the trusts — concentration in- 
stead of division — co-operation instead of competition — 
is also a perfectly correct idea. 

It gives great advantages to those who avail them- 
selves of it, in other words, to those "who are in it." 

^ * Jk 

And yet the alarm about the trusts is easily under- 
stood. The trusts just by their greatness have brought 
the evils of the capitalist system clearly before the eyes 
of every one. 

The trusts have proved that under the present indus- 
trial system a small number of capitalists have it in their 
power to decide how much meat and how much bread 
we shall eat. 

How much we shall spend for coal and how much 
for oil. 

How much sugar and how much tobacco we are per- 
mitted to use. 

How nicely or how poorly we shall be clothed and 
housed, or whether we are to own a house at all. 

In short, the trusts decide how well or how ill, how 

long or how short a time we shall live. 
* * * 

The trusts, as we have said before, are a benefit to 
those who own them. Yet the trusts are large enough 
for the whole people to feel this benefit if the whole 
people should own the trusts. 

Therefore, we Social-Democrats contend that the 



262 berger's broadsides 

whole people collectively — as a nation — should take the 
place of the few trust magnates and become the owner 
of the trusts. 

* * * 

Against the trusts there is no other remedy. 

Progress, production on a large scale, the mighty 
accumulation of capital, make monopoly a necessary 
condition. Monopoly is here, whether we wish it or not. 

The question, therefore, is only whether it shall be a 

private or a public monopoly. 

^ ^ ^ 

The question is, do we wish to leave the products of 
this country in the control of a small number of irre- 
sponsible men, whose only interest is to exploit us up to 
the last limit of our endurance ? 

Do we wish to leave to a small clique the monopoly of 
all things which make life good and desirable? Do we 
wish to make them absolute masters of all the necessities 
of our lives ? 

Do we wish to starve in our hovels like rats? Or do 
we wish to fight with bomb, dagger, dynamite and shot- 
gun? 

* * * 

No! No! No! 

We still have one way left to try to conquer these 
powerful economic tyrants. We still have the ballot. 
This country is politically a democracy and we can avail 
ourselves of political power. 

Down with the power of capitalism. Down with the 
Republican and the Democratic parties, which are 
upholding the present system and its exploitation and its 
trust robbery. 

Up with the banner of Social-Democrady ! Let the 



WHAT MAKES US WILLING TO WORK AND SACRIFICE 263 

people take hold of the trusts. Let the trusts be put into 
the possession of the whole nation. Let all of us become 
shareholders. 

There is no other solution. 

Therefore, if you really want to combat the trusts — if 
you really want to make a change — then vote for Social- 
Democratic candidates for legislature and Congress. 
^ ^ ^ 

The election of two Social-Democratic congressmen 
from Wisconsin will send a cold shiver down the spine 
of every trust. 

And it is bound to affect the high prices. 



What Makes Us Willing to Work 
and to Sacrifice? 

Written December 3, 1910. 
IT is not overstating the fact when I say that the 
eyes of all the thinking men in this country — without 
distinction of party or class — are upon us just now and 
will be upon us for some time to come. 

* * ;^ 

111 fact, one might think from what some of the news- 
papers say about us, that Victor Berger is a Jengis Khan, 
who is going to destroy civilization within the next two 
or three years; and from others that this same Victor 
Berger is the greatest genius and benefactor of humanity 
that has lived in many a century. 



264 berger's broadsides 

Well, so much is safe to say — Victor Berger's head is 
not going to be turned in the least by the unprecedented 
newspaper fame and notoriety he is getting nowadays. 

* * 5jC 

And not only in this country, but also in Europe, the 
recent election of Victor Berger to Congress created 
quite a sensation. 

French and German SociaHsts have been making a 
great deal of the victory in their papers and party con- 
ventions. The victory has been celebrated in many meet- 
ings and in many banquets by workmen in France, Ger- 
many and Austria. 

* * * 

And one can easily understand the reason for this. 

It was always a reproach to the Socialists in Germany, 
France, England and Austria — that the Socialist Party 
has not made any headway in the United States. The 
European comrades were told that while they were fight- 
ing capitalism at home, in the most capitalistic republic 
of the world, in the United States, Socialism had made 
no headway — in spite of the political freedom the work- 
ingmen are supposed to enjoy here. That not a single 
representative of the working class — not a single Social- 
Democrat — sat in the national law-giving body in 
America. 

Thus the battle won November the 8th in Milwaukee 
has an international significance. And that is the 
reason why the class-conscious workingmen from "Lon- 
don to Buda Pesth, and from St. Petersburg to Paler- 
mo," now rejoice — to use a figure of speech of the Mil- 
waukee Sentinel. 

5lC * * 

However, the international significance of this Mil- 



WHAT MAKES US WILLING TO WORK AND SACRIFICE 265 

waukee victory only adds to the responsibility of the 
comrades. 

Milwaukee comrades must never forget for one 
moment what they owe to the movement of the country 
and to the movement of the world. 

They should never forget that while they must make 
good in Milwaukee county, this is only a little part of 
their problem. 

In fact, it is only an incident. 

H< ^ 5}S 

They must, of course, make good in the administra- 
tion. They must, therefore, get the best possible material 
for every office — Socialists wherever political affiliation 
is a requirement — men with knowledge, without any 
regard for party, wherever technical ability is para- 
mount. 

jjs ^ is 

Comrades and non-comrades alike — friends and foes 
alike — must never forget that this party was not started 
and built up for the purpose of getting political jobs for 
fifty or for five hundred. This party was started for the 
emancipation of the working class. 

Comrades and non-comrades alike — friends and foes 
alike — must never forget that this party was not started 
and built up solely for the purpose of giving Milwaukee 
County a good administration. Milwaukee County will 
get this, and, in fact, will get the best administration any 
county in America has ever had. But we have bigger 
things in view and will never forget our greater aims 
for one moment. 

Jjs * * 

We shall never forget for one moment that while the 
Social-Democratic Party fights the battles of the workers 



266 berger's broadsides 

— now and here — while it fights the battle for honesty 
and for all the people alike as far as good government 
is concerned — the ultimate aim of our party is not 
reform, it is a revolution — a legal and peaceable revolu- 
tion, but none the less a revolution. 

Our party will never stop in its work until it has at- 
tained the complete government of the nation and has 
substituted for the present profit system and capitalist 
exploitation a system under which the people will col- 
lectively own and control the natural resources and the 
machinery of production and distribution — until we get 
a system which will eliminate corruption, child labor, 
poverty, want, misery and prostitution — a system in 
which all will have an equal opportunity and equal 
chance to work out their share of life, liberty and happi- 
ness as far as human imperfection will permit. 
^ -^ ^ 

Now, this is our ultimate aim. This makes us willing 
to fight and to sacrifice. 

Anybody who is in our party for any other purpose 
has got into the wrong camp and he would better get 
out as quickly as possible. 

And I therefore appeal to all our comrades within the 
organized Socialist movement to absolutely discourage 
office-hunters and office-hunting, and to look upon it as a 
danger to our great cause and to our great movement. 

And with this aim before us I appeal to the 24,000 So- 
cialist voters in Milwauke County to stand by us, not only 
on election day, but every day of the year, as long as 
we are trying to live up to our principles and to get 
nearer to our ideals. 



SOCIALIST ADMINISTRATION AND TAX QUESTION 267 



The Socialist Administration and the 
Tax Question. 

Written December 24, 1910. 

THERE is a great deal of dissatisfaction among the 
citizens of Milwaukee because the taxes this year are 
considerably higher than last year. 

Many people blame the Social-Democratic administra- 
tion. 

Yet this is not only very unjust, but it shows a deplor- 
able lack of information about the administration of 
affairs in this city. 

The present administration has nothing to do with the 
taxes for this year, except that it has to enforce them. 
The tax levy was fixed by the former regime, by the 
Rose government. 

So if any indignant citizen wants to ''make a kick/' 

he will have to send it in the direction of David S. Rose 

and the democratic aggregation which still held sway 

last year. 

^ j{j >j« 

However, the question of taxes is very much mis- 
understood on general principles. 

As I have said before, the question is not how much 
taxes a person pays, but how much benefit the tax-payer 
derives from them. 

* * 5k 

A tax of $20 a year on a cottage may be very high 
and costly, if the money is squandered — if there are bad 



261 berger's broadsides 

streets, unhealthy sanitary conditions and no benefit 
otherwise to the people. 

On the other hand, a tax of $40 on the same property 
may be very low if the tax-payer gets fine streets, excel- 
lent schools, beautiful parks, model sanitary conditions 
and other advantages — in short, if the city is made a fit 
place for decent people, and especially for working 
people, to live and bring up a family. 
^ ^ ^ 

In fact, every dollar paid in taxes ought to bring its 
full value in benefits for all the people. And every tax- 
payer knows by this time that the Social-Democratic 
administration will try to stretch every dollar as far in 
that direction as it will possibly go. 

However, the trouble is that we Social-Democrats have 
to suffer for the sins of our predecessors in this direction 
as in every other. 

There can be no doubt that our tax system is miser- 
able and inefficient beyond description. 

There can be no doubt that a tremendous amount of 
property, which ought to be taxed under the law^ — and 
it is property of wealthy people — is now escaping taxa- 
tion. 

^ ^ >k 

For instance, just take the general condition. Accord- 
ing to the figures of the United States census for the 
year 1900 — the latest figures available — 1532 establish- 
ments owned $162,129,641 of property in Milwaukee. 

. According to the assessor's figures the total valuation 
of the property of the city of Milwaukee in 1906 was 
$201,585,127. 



SOCIALIST ADMINISTRATION AND TAX QUESTION 269 

According to the United States Census for Manufac- 
tures in 1900, the items of cash and sundries in 1532 
estabUshments alone were given as $89,669,315. 

But in 1906, the entire personal property of all the 
citizens of Milwaukee was assessed at a total of $43,- 
973,567, although since 1900 the city had grown tre- 
mendously. 

In other words, the assessment for personal property 
for all the tax-payers of the entire city was less than 
half what the Census of Manufactures showed for 1532 
establishments six years before. 

Talk about tax dodging! 

>}j ^ * 

Another item. Last year the Milwaukee baseball club 
made $50,000. But the personal taxes of the baseball 
magnate amounted to a few paltry dollars. Of course, 
I do not want to insinuate that this was because Mr. 
Havenor contributed to the liemocratic campaign fund. 

Still another illustration. Last year, the state de- 
manded — besides the taxes on real estate and improve- 
ments and on tangible personal property — a tax upon 
$21,000,000 of intangible property. 

However, our city assessor in the year 1909 was able 
to find and assess only $6,800,000 of intangible property. 

What became of the difference of nearly $15,500,000, 
on which the city was compelled to pay taxes to the 
state ? 

What is worse, the city had to raise the other assess- 
ments and the taxes on other property in order to make 
up to the state and the county the taxes for the $15,- 
000,000, which our assessor could not find. 

This has been going on for years in Milwaukee. 



270 berger's broadsides 

Now what is to be done? 

No doubt that even the system for real estate assess- 
ments should be changed. It is not modern and ought 
to be brought up to date. 

For example, the city of Cleveland changed its tax 
system in the fall of 1909 and elected some competent 
men as real estate appraisers. They raised the valuations 
in the city of Cleveland from $200,000,000 to $600,000,- 
000. 

* * * 

And what is of more importance, this new commission 
found that large properties had been greatly under- 
assessed. This was corrected and saved the small home- 
owners in Cleveland $2,000,000 in taxes last year. 

* * 5k 

AH property was placed on the tax list at its full 
market value, complying with the law, which had never 
been done before. But instead of this causing an outcry, 
it met with almost universal approval from the masses 
of the people in Cleveland. 

Only the wealthy chronic tax-dodgers, whose property 
had increased enormously in value during the past ten 
years and who want to hog all the unearned increment, 
are dissatisfied with the change. 

But the law in regard to placing all property on the 
tax list at its full value, is the same in this state. And 
the Social-Democratic administration intends to comply 
with this law. And the Social-Democratic administra- 
tion intends also to adopt a system as nearly similar to 
the Cleveland system as possible. 

Moreover, the Common Council has decided to employ 



SOCIALIST IaDMINISTRATION AND TAX QUESTION 271 

ferrets to find personal property which is now escaping 
taxation altogether. 

And no honest man, not even an honest capitalist, 
ought to object if the city wants to compel the tax 
dodgers to pay their fair share. 

:^ j|c ^ 

As the thing now stands, real estate and tangible per- 
sonal property is readily discovered if the tax assessor is 
honest and does his duty. 

Furthermore, loans secured by mortgages in the State 
of Wisconsin and stocks in any corporation in this state 
which pays taxes otherwise are exempt from taxation 
by the city. 

But mortgages on lands in other states and countries, 
and stocks and bonds in corporations outside of the 
State of Wisconsin are not tax-free. Such securities 
must pay taxes — says the law. They only escape tax- 
ation if not found by the assessor. 
^ t- i^ 

But the average capitalist in this country has a pretty 
convenient memory and a very wide conscience in that 
respect. And men who are known to own thousands of 
stocks and bonds either do not ow^n up at all or report 
a ridiculously low sum. 

In Germany, tax-dodgers of that kind are punished, 
not only by a sentence in jail — because perjury, if com- 
mitted against the state, is punished twice as severely 
as other perjury and is liable to get a man into the peni- 
tentiary for five years — but in case of detection or 
when the inheritance is recorded, the government has 
a right to collect ten times, and sometimes fourteen 
times, as much back taxes as are due. In many cases. 



272 berger's broadsides 

this would amount to confiscation. This rigor makes 
tax-dodging in Germany a very dangerous business. 

But this country is the paradise of the rich tax-dodger. 
And Milwaukee is not the only city where this is the 
case. 

* sfs * 

But the honest tax-payer, especially the small home- 
owner, has to pay the price as things are now. And so 
must the honest business man, manufacturer or owner 
of business blocks who does not stand in with the tax 
assessors and who does not want to resort to bribery. 

All these people, including the man who pays the rent, 
have to make up for the dishonesty of the others. They 
not only have to pay so much more, but since it is im- 
possible for them to make up for the big tax-dodgers, 
the city is continually hard up. It has poor streets, 
insufficient school facilities, and it cannot meet its obli- 
gations. 

sfs sK * 

Therefore the following is going to be the program of 
the Social-Democratic Party on the tax question. 

We will assess the full value of the property as the 
law prescribes. 

We will apply a new method which will put the main 
burden on those who can afford to bear it. 

And we will employ tax ferrets in order to reach the 
tax-dodgers. 

* * Hs 

' Though it is disagreeable for a city administration, and 
especially for a Socialist administration, to employ spies 
to find tax-dodgers, yet it is no worse than employing 
detectives against other criminals. 

Modern American cities are in the same condition as 



NON-PARTISAN WORKINGMAN TRAITOR 273 

the Italian and German cities of the middle ages which 
had to hire condottieri and landsknechte and other mer- 
cenaries to defend themselves against the robber barons. 
The robber baron is upon us again — only he wears 
a frock coat and is a pillar of society. 



The Noii'-Partisan Workingman is a 
Traitor to His Class. 

Written July 22, 1911. 

THE MILWAUKEE JOURNAL and such so-called 
reformers as it can command or who hope to get into 
office with its help, are instituting another campaign for 
*'non-partisan'' municipal elections. 

This is not the first effort in that direction. An 
attempt to abolish parties in Milwaukee by law has failed. 

And rif^htly so. 

* * * 

Every democracy presupposes parties. 

Whenever a dozen electors stand together for the 
same measure or issue they will form some sort of an 
organization to carry out that measure or issue, — or they 
will fail. Every such little clique will be a party in 
embryo. 

Only as long as it remains a little clique, it will stand 
for small things and for the personal advantage of a few 
men. A clique will also be much more easily manipu- 



274 berger's broadsides 

lated than a real party — and manipulated by smaller and 
crookeder men. 

Thus in the final analysis ''non-partisanship'' is simply 
a question whether it is more advantageous to rally 
around small issues and petty men or around great prin- 
ciples and big men. 

>K * * 

Moreover, if parties are an evil in the municipal field,' 
why are these parties not an evil also in state and natio- 
nal elections? Certain ''reformers" are now trying to 
organize a party to abolish parties — and have the ini- 
tiative and referendum instead. 

If the Journal reformers were consistent they would 
do the same thing. If parties are an evil in the city, 
then they are surely an evil in the state and in the nation. 
^ ^ ^ 

Students of history know that a democracy must have 
parties or it will dribble into small cliques and groups. 
Without parties democracy will become inefficient. It 
will wind up either in anarchy or monarchy, — usually it 
will result in first one, then the other. 

Political parties are also necessary in a republic be- 
cause they fix the responsibility. 

A party may be good, or bad, or indiflferent, but it is 
always held responsible by the voters. 

The Rose democracy was surely bad enough, yet it 
was better than no organization at all, because the people 
could fix the guilt. The same is the case in New York, 
Chicago or Philadelphia. Tammany, the Republicans in 
Philadelphia, and the County Democracy in Chicago are 
undoubtedly rotten — yet they are a great deal better than 



NON-PARTISAN WORKINGMAN TRAITOR 275 

anything the ''reformers" have ever been able to put in 
their place. 

* * Jfs 

But the Journal reformers do not mean to abolish 
parties entirely. They only want to abolish them in Mil- 
waukee, where the Journal is printed. 

They say, the national parties corrupt local politics. 

Well, the Journal ought to know. The Journal helped 
Mark Hanna in 1896, in the days of the utmost corrup- 
tion of politics, and stood for the so-called ''gold demo- 
cracy." Yet the Journal no doubt was actuated by hon- 
est capitalistic motives in opposing the free coinage of 
silver. 

However, national parties are not responsible for local 
graft or grafting city administrations. 

* * * 

The national Republican party is not responsible for 
tlie Republican grafters in Philadelphia. The national 
Democratic party cannot be blamed for the Tammany 
graft, or for the Rose grafters. 

Both national parties are only responsible for the graft 
and the grafters inasmuch as they stand for capitalism, 
and capitalism is the basis of all graft. 

5jj J{i * 

The trouble is that even our honest reformers have 
always expected too much from mere changes in the 
election machinery. Even our honest reformers expect 
conditions to change by changing the way of expression. 

Instead of attacking capitalism and the principle of 
getting something for nothing, which is pervading our 
entire system and is also the mother of all graft and 
crime, — these reformers have always hoped miracles 
from blanket ballots, Australian ballots, short ballots, 



276 berger's broadsides 

non-partisan ballots, Mary-Ann puzzle ballots and any 
old ballots. 

Even the brainier ones among them expect wonders 
from the Initiative, the Referendum and the "Recall'' 
which can never be accomplished by these methods. 

Now, the Initiative, the Referendum and the Recall 
were Social-Democratic measures originally. We ac- 
knowledge them and use them for what they are worth. 

But we do not think that they are a panacea for all 
evils. They are simply a method of expressing the will 
of the people in democracy. They are simply details of 
the democratic machinery. 

jK ♦ * 

Yet it all depends upon how this machinery is used. 
And under the capitalist system, capitalists, grafters, 
schemers and crooks who have money and talent at 
their disposal, can handle the Initiative, the Referendum 
and the Recall with just as much facility as they handled 
the old party caucus, the Australian ballot, the blanket 
ballot and as they handle the short ballot in Chicago 
and other cities. 

We say so much for the honest reformers. 

But the Journal reformers are not honest. 

To the Journal "non-partisanship" means all parties 
united against the Socialist party. 

The Journal is looking for a way to unite Republicans 
and Democrats, common grafters and honest reformers, 
saloonkeepers and church people, red-light district heel- 
ers and Protestant preachers under one banner against 
the Social-Democrats. 

The Journal is trying to find a catch-phrase by which 
it can unite capitalists who know what they are about 
and ignorant workingmen who don't know what they are 



NON-PARTISAN WORKINGMAN TRiAITOR 277 

about in one and the same "non-partisan'' anti-Socialist 
citizens' party. 

And the entire aggregation and congregation is to 
have the blessings and the support of that dark power of 
reaction, oppression and superstition which has opposed 
all enlightenment and progress for sixteen hundred 
years. Only the Journal, of course, will not admit this. 

* * * 

However, the Journal reformers will fail miserably, 
for the simple reason that they cannot possibly succeed. 

* * Hj 

Unless this earth of ours is struck by a comet or unless 
at least the white race and its civilization is wiped out 
entirely by some barbaric invasion which we cannot now 
foresee, this world is going to have Socialism as the next 
phase of civilization. 

* * * 

And every step against Socialism is futile. 
And every step in the direction of Socialism is suc- 
cessful and can never be retracted. 

* * 5i« 

Moreover, Social-Democracy is the political economy 
of the working class the world over. And the Socialist 
party is the political expression of the working class the 
world over. 

Therefore, the workingman must be partisan and bit- 
terly partisan — unless he is a contemptible traitor to his 
class, his family and to himself. 

He jK * 

Labor can never be non-partisan. 

Labor will always be partisan to labor until the pres- 
ent system is abolished — grafters, capitalists, reformers 
and all. Only the working class is immortal. 



278 berger's broadsides 



The Party of the New Idea. 

Written December, 1906. 

Like every new phase of civilization, Socialism thus 
far has received the attention only of the oppressed and 
the lowly. The opulent and the rich have no reason to 
wish for a change of the system. They do not, as a rule, 
want to hear anything about it. 

Until of late, outside of the working class, only stu- 
dents of history, of political economy, and a few ad- 
vanced thinkers have given any attention to the prin- 
ciples of Socialism. Most other persons have only a 
very vague idea even of its basis. Yet Sociali-sm is in 
the foreground of discussion. 

Is This the Endf 

Socialism stands for a new civilization. 

Of course, with people who believe that whatever is 
will exist forever, and that we have reached the acme 
of civilization, it is entirely useless to argue. 

But surely no educated man believes that the present 
conditions are the end of all things. 

That we have not reached the end of our national 
development is clear. Every new invention and every 
new political question proves that to us. And it would 
be sad indeed if we had reached ''the end.'' We then 
should soon be on a level with China. 

And I need not explain, that the Social-Democratic 
movement is not to be traced to the irresponsible work of 
individual agitators or eccentric persons. 

The very name of our party, "Social-Democracy," pro- 
claims our aims. 



THE PARTY OF THE NEW IDEA 279 

In regard to the political form we demand the rule of 
the people, i. e. democracy. In regard to the economic 
sphere, and the spirit which shall manifest itself in this 
form and give life to it, we demand Socialism, that is, 
the collective ownership of the means of production and 
distribution. 

Thus we shall have Social-Democracy. A democracy 
which is founded on economic independence, upon the 
political and industrial equality of opportunity for alL 

Industry on a Large Scale. 

Determined opponents of the present capitaHstic sys- 
tem of industry as the Social-Democrats are, still they 
never think of calling the concentration of capital the 
cause of all evil. 

Social-Democrats do not try to smash the trusts as 
such. On the contrary, the Social-Democracy appre- 
ciates so fully the advantages of industrial production 
on a large scale that we wish its most perfect develop- 
ment, which is impossible under the capitalist system. 

The control of production by the people as a whole 
means the highest possible perfection of industry on a 
large scale. 

Our Lives Are in Their Hands. 

And we all deeply feel the disadvantages of the private 
ownership of the means of production and distribution 
on a large scale. 

We observe how the railroads, street car companies, 
and other public service corporations corrupt our legis- 
latures. We notice how our life insurance savings arq 
simply furnishing funds for high-financiers. We witness 
how the largest factory owners combine into trusts which 
are "financiered" by banks and how the meat trust, the 



280 berger's broadsides 

oil trust, the steel trust, and all the other trusts are 
"regulating prices,'' and how moreover some of these 
trusts are ruining the health of the people. 

We all see it. We all feel it. And we all know it. 

Then we all must also comprehend that the owners of 
these sheets and strips of paper (which under our present 
system stand for "capital") virtually decide how much 
we shall pay for our coffee and our bread, how much for 
our kerosene and our coal, and how much we are to 
spend for our houses, clothing, etc. 

In other words, they decide how well or how poorly we 
are to live. They have "the say'' as to how long or how 
short a time we are permitted to live. 

The Wolves Succeed Best. 

And the wage workers are by no means the only ones 
who suffer from these conditions. 

With every increase of power and concentration of 
wealth the educated and professional class is forced more 
and more into dependence upon the capitalist. Our 
teachers, professors, speakers, newspaper editors, and 
writers, and even ministers, doctors, and all professional 
men, are more and more at the mercy of the capitalistic 
system, and brought into abject dependence. Thus the 
educated proletariat ever increases. 

On the other hand — money-making is not a matter of 
education. 

On the contrary, the more vulgar and wolfish the man, 
the more readily he succeeds. 

A Grafters' World. 
And wealth, usually expressed by money, is now the 
god. It is by the distribution of part of this wealth that 
the rich man gets his dangerous powers. It is the mono- 



THE harty of the new idea 281 

poly of that which all want — some of which all must 
have — that makes his power so fearful. 

The big grafter (or his heir) writes his check and 
gets all the good or bad things his heart desires. He 
gets adulation, professional skill, wine and women, para- 
graphs in the newspapers and the disposal of political 
places. 

A man like Sherburn M. Becker, who only with dif- 
ficulty is able to read off the trashy speeches written by 
his private secretary, is made mayor of Milwaukee, and 
heralded far and wide as a '*boy wonder." 

Why ? Because he uses very freely the great wealth left 
to him by his great grandfather to advertise himself. 

A vulgar and coarse English exploiter like Sir Thomas 
Lipton, who for the last 40 years has not earned an 
honest dollar — but is reported to be ''worth" 50 millions 
— is invited to Milwaukee and treated as a "demi-god." 

Under such conditions it is only natural that money 
has become the root of all evil. Wealth being the great- 
est social power, it naturally is the worst of all tempta- 
tions. Our present economic system creates grafters, 
criminals, thieves, and prostitutes. 

Parties Act From Self-Interest, 

These conditions are before our eyes in spite of all 
that is said by the capitalist press and the capitalist 
politician. 

And what remedy can the old political parties bring 
to the people? 

Parties, like individuals, act from motives of self- 
interest. 

Now both of the old parties are owned by the capi- 



282 berger's broadsides 

talists. This is a fact, not even denied by the more 
honest leaders of both Republican and Democratic par- 
ties. 

And what can you you do about it? 

There is only one party in the field standing for the 
''new idea." There is only one party representing in the 
political field the necessary outcome of the evolution in 
the economic field. That is the Social-Democratic party. 

The Social-Democratic party stands squarely upon the 
principles of international Socialism. It relies wholly 
upon education and upon the development of the in- 
dustrial forces. Both of these factors make for Social- 
ism. 

A Peaceful Revolution, 

The Social-Democratic party, while it is revolutionary 
in its final aim, is none the less distinctly evolutionary 
and constructive in its method. 

Social reforms of all kinds are welcomed by the Social- 
Democrats for many reasons. 

In the first place, by reforms we can stop the increas- 
ing pauperization, and consequently also the enervation 
of the masses of the people. If real reforms are serious- 
ly taken up and carried out with determination, they 
may even lift the masses to a considerable extent. 

But the main reason for our favoring them is be- 
cause such reforms, if logically carried out, offer the 
possibility of a peaceful, lawful and orderly transforma- 
tion of society. 

Social-Democracy Is Constructive. 

The Social-Democratic party is the only true reform 
party in existence. We agitate for the organization of 



DISAGREEABLE WORK 283 

the masses. And organization everywhere means order. 
We educate, we enlighten, we reason, we discipline. 
And, therefore, besides order, we bring also law, reason, 
discipline, and progress. 

It is therefore absolutely false to represent our Social- 
Democracy as merely destructive, as intending to over- 
throw and annihilate society, as an appeal to the brute 
passions of the masses. 

Just the opposite is true. 

Our Social-Democracy wants to maintain our culture 
and civilization, and bring it to a higher level. 

Our party wants to guard this nation from destruc- 
tion. 

We appeal to the best in every man, to the public 
spirit of the citizen, to his love of wife and children. 



"" Disagreeable Work/' 

Written April, 1907. 

A LAWYER who has read our answer to Mr. Hoyt, 
is very much disturbed, lest in the Socialist Republic 
nobody could be found who would do the "disagreable" 
work. He fears that everybody would want the "easy" 
jobs. 

In answer to this we would first say that the decision 
as to what work or employment is *'agreeable" and 
"disagreeable" will no doubt differ according to personal 
taste and inclination. Agricultural pursuits, which, for 
example, are the most agreeable occupation to some, 
might be perfectly intolerable to others. Office work 



284 berger's broadsides 

and bookkeeping, which to some people seem very desir- 
able, would be the last occupation I would choose. 

One could therefore wager ten to one that almost 
every ''disagreeable'' employment might find its lover. 

To this must be added the fact that the machine will 
do more and more the work of men. Today competi- 
tion is the incentive of the capitalist to let the machine 
do as much work as possible, in order to save money. 
In the Socialist Society the prospect of the alleviation 
and embellishment of life for everybody will have the 
same effect even in a greater degree. 

But for those who point to street-cleaning, scavenging, 
etc., I should like to draw their attention to the fact, 
that not only in foreign countries, but also in America, 
there are many cities which use machines for that kind 
of work. It is perfectly clear that a society which 
makes its special aim to fashion human life as humanely 
as possible, will endeavor, far more than the present 
society to have as much labor as possible done by 
machines. 

ijc * * 

That all "disagreeable work" will ever be entirely 
abolished in this world, I do not believe. 

Of course, nobody knows the future. But I am sure 
that such labor will be limited to the smallest possible 
amount. Maybe even then there will be a good deal 
more disagreeable labor than will please most people. 

Suppose this should be the case, what would that prove 
against the Socialist Republic? 

Is it not a fact, that even today the most disagreeable 
work is done without remuneration, without wages or 
material gain, simply from a feeling of solidarity? Or 
from friendship and love? 



DISAGREEABLE WORK 285 

Just think of the care of the sick, the nursing of little 
children and the efforts for the salvation of fallen 
women. You will then agree that if even a society like 
our present capitalist society, built on egotism and greed, 
and which, therefore, necessarily must promote and 
strengthen egotism and anti-social impulses — if even 
such a society is capable of bringing forth deeds of un- 
selfish sacrifice, how much more a society founded upon 
the feeling of solidarity, which naturally will endeavor 
to strengthen that side of humanity. 

And even if we should not succeed, at least not imme- 
diately and from the very first, in resurrecting the altru- 
istic spirit to such a degree that it will be strong enough 
to secure the performance of the *'most disagreeable 
labor'' because it is necessary, we should still have the 
expedient of securing the performance of such labor 
through the greatest shortening of the working day for 
those performing such labor, and by granting special 
premiums, or even by assigning such labor as a punish- 
ment to those who have broken the laws of society. 

I believe, therefore, that, after calm consideration, even 

this objection will lose the illusive power which it did 

seem to have at first glance to our lawyer friend. 
* * * 

And if our friend should bring up the other notion, 
that in the Co-operative Commonwealth men would lack 
the incentive to activity, this only proves what wrong 
ideas our perverted order of society has produced. Be- 
cause today greed and graft are the basis of society, 
some people believe that society will fall to pieces the 
minute that greed and graft make room for a noble and 
stronger basis. 



286 berger's broadsides 

Does not the sight of every child teach that a healthy 
human being cannot exist without activity? 

And is it not clear that a society which for the first 
time makes us all bodily and mentally healthy will bring 
this inherent impulse towards activity to its fullest de- 
velopment ? 

This inherent impulse to work will be mightily 
strengthened in a society which offers opportunity to 
every one to choose that kind of work which is best 
suited to him or her, and which will burden nobody too 
much, and which will secure to every one the fullest 
equivalent of his or her labor. 

To this must be added the stimulating thought — that 
only work is being done which is necessary and useful 
to the community. 

Where everybody must work, the idea of compulsion 
vanishes of itself. 

On the contrary, work will then become the only 
badge of hor|pr that society knows. Today money and 
inherited wealth are the golden keys. 

And where all work which is done, is necessary from a 
social standpoint, by and by the different valuation of 
different kinds of work will also cease. 



For, if we look at it more closely, we find that today 
it is the wages of labor, i. e. money, which decides the 
higher or lesser respect which is accorded to a skilled 
trade or profession. In a society which no longer knows 
such standard of value, the valuation of the different 
kinds of work which depend solely upon the money 
earned, will also come to an end. 



DISAGREEABLE WORK 287 

Far from destroying in men the joy of work or 
even diminishing it, the Socialist Republic, on the con- 
trary, will rather bring it to its fullest development. 
Only in the Socialist Republic the time in human history 
will be reached when labor will cease to be a burden and 
become a joy. 

There for the first time labor will be no longer a sign 
of degradation, but a title of honor. 

In reality it is the society of today which is the great 
penitentiary, that some — and not only Herbert Spencer- 
suppose the Socialistic society will be. On the contrary, 
it will be the Walhalla of labor, flooded with light and 
air, in which the song of freedom, of happy human 
beings will never cease. 

The Socialist Republic does not mean the destruction 

and downfall of our culture and civilization — this is 

« 

threatened by the present society — but its salvation and 
maintenance. Our victory will be the victory of civili- 
zation. 

jjc Hi * 

Whoever still doubts this should be taught by the fact 
that the Social-Democratic party alone is called upon to 
defend more and more the immortal achievements of 
the Declaration of Independence, of true democracy. All 
other parties will grow more and more into one reaction- 
ary mass. 

* * * 

There is no doubt that a great historical day is again 
approaching when men will separate to the right and the 
left. This will be done whether we want it or not. 

Those who remain true to the ideals of liberty, equal- 
ity, and fraternity can follow no other flag than the red 
international banner of Social-Democracy. 



288 berger's broadsides 



Let It Work Both Ways! 

Written October, 1907. 

From time immemorial in all civilized countries there 
have been laws of a restraining nature. They were 
always based upon the principle that individuals must 
curb their powers, their passions, their desires whenever, 
by gratifying these, the interests of society as a whole 
might be injured. 

Robbery, forgery, rape and arson are forbidden, be- 
cause the committal of these crimes, if permitted, would 
prove injurious to the welfare of the people in general, 
though they might advance the interests of those com- 
mitting them. 

:k * * 

Let us suppose the case of a needy man who sees with- 
in easy reach the wherewithal to satisfy his wants. All 
he has to do is to stretch out his hands to get it. 

Yet he is not permitted to do so. The law stands 
before him with a solemn threat. It tells him that it is 
wiser and better for the welfare of the community that 
he should suffer — or even that he should perish — rather 
than that he should take things which do not belong to 
him. 

At least this is the contention of the state in enforcing 
this regulation. It is for the welfare of the many, as 
opposed to that of the individual, that this particular 
citizen must restrain his desires, sometimes even his 
hunger. 

In other words, the first law of nature — ^that of per- 
sonal self-preservation — is made subordinate to the code 



LET IT WORK BOTH WAYS 289 

of laws which has been adopted for the preservation of 
society as it is. A man who is starving cannot even steal 
a loaf of bread to preserve his life, because stealing is 
supposed to be destructive to society. 

The principle is clearly established and recognized 
that individual interests — no matter how pressing — 
should not in any case supersede general interests. 
* * * 

And yet how limited is the application of this excel- 
lent principle of restriction. 

The law which prohibits the gratification of the poor 
man's hunger at the expense of his neighbor, to be 
logical, should prohibit the gratification of the rich man's 
greed at the expense of his neighbors. 

If it is just and politic that individuals should be 
restrained whenever their actions tend to affect adversely 
the morals and welfare of the community or of the 
nation — then certainly a check should also be imposed on 
those who, by accumulation of wealth far beyond their 
needs, are instrumental in producing poverty and the 
crimes and vices which are the results of poverty. 

If personal self-gratification and even personal self- 
preservation must make way for social preservation, then 
it should be required that the opulent surrender their 
riches in order to save the social organization. 

If the principle of subjection to restriction for the gen- 
eral good is one whose application is essential to the 
welfare of the commonwealth, then even the power of 
indulging the passion of greed for immoderate wealth, 
which might inflict injury on others, should be absolutely 
curbed. 

^ Hs * 

There is a strange power whereby gold is drawn 



290 berger's broadsides 

toward gold. The greater the accumulation, the greater 
the attraction. 

There are a number of men in our country who annu- 
ally add millions to their possessions. If the same process 
of. accumulation were applied to land — and there is no 
law to forbid it — it is evident that a man acquiring a 
title to several million acres every year need only live 
long enough to become possessed of the earth. Con- 
sidering the vast holdings of certain Americans now — 
and their strenuous efforts to add to these and the power 
thus obtained — there is no reason why a few men in 
our generation should not combine and form a powerful 
trust of trusts — compared with which the power of the 
Kaiser of Germany would sink to insignificance. 

As it is now, our trust magnates — in spite of all the 
efforts of Roosevelt and Bryan and Bonaparte and Taft — 
constitute a power in our public and private and social 
life which renders ridiculous all the pretensions of a 
republic of citizens "free and equal." 

While we have a democracy in name, we live in a pluto- 
cracy in fact. 

But how long will it last ? 

jk * * 

For let it not be thought that the lessons of the past 
are completely forgotten. 

The overthrow of mighty kings in the past, the break- 
down of hierarchies and the reduction of popes, are not 
mere romances without historical meaning. 

On the contrary. The history of the future can to no 
small extent be read in the pages of the past. 

The princes and popes of the past claimed their power 
and their authority from God. If these princes, nobles 



LET IT WORK BOTH WAYS 291 

and priests had their prerogatives curtailed in spite of 
their claim that these prerogatives were of divine origin, 
can our plutocrats expect that their power, that their pre- 
rogatives will last forever ? 

Or do they mean to say that the forward march of 
Democracy, which did not halt before the crown and the 
tiara — that the Democracy, which rebelled against the 
^'holiness'* of the crosier and the cassock — will forever 

bow down before the unholiness of the money bag? 
Ji« * * 

And what did It profit to restrict the prerogatives of 
rulers and the privileges of nobles and of the clergy, as 
long as the privileges of wealth remain intact ? 

Distributing votes and concentrating wealth did not 
fulfill the promises of Democracy. 

A score of men in our great country enjoy privileges, 
and have a power for weal and for woe — political, finan- 
cial and social — greater than the privileges and powers 
of the millions of the masses combined. 

Call this state of things whatever you will, but you 
cannot call it Democracy. Claim for it what advantage 
you please, but you cannot claim that it is advantageous 
to the masses of the nation. 

The principle which should guide our government — 
the principle which should guide every honest govern- 
ment — of subordinating the individual to the general wel- 
fare — requires a broader application than it receives at 
present. 

If a man is not allowed to steal a loaf of bread from 
others to satisfy his hunger, then a man ought not to be 
allowed to steal a million loaves from others and steal 
them every day to satisfy his greed. 

We have solved the problem of production, we must 



""02 kerger's broadsides 

solve the problem of distribution — or our civilization will 
break down. 

In short, our present Democracy cannot defend its very 
name against the encroachment of plutocracy. And 
what is worse, it cannot defend its very existence on the 
ground of equity, of morality, or even of expediency — un- 
less it becomes Social-Democracy. 



ra^T^^fi^^^ 




M^ 


^^S 


2iiC^s 


» 


^^^^Ml^^^?i 


B 


M 



.t 



■ • ' f-'c'^WKip^lff"'''? 



